; Aaron Swartz- Norms in a Wired World
Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Aaron Swartz- Norms in a Wired World


  • pg 1
									This page intentionally left blank
                      Norms in a Wired World

Social order is regulated from above by the law, but its foundation is built
on norms and customs, informal social practices that enable people to make
meaningful and productive uses of their time and resources. Despite the impor-
tance of these practices in keeping the social fabric together, very little of the
jurisprudential literature has discussed these norms and customs.
    In Norms in a Wired World, Steven A. Hetcher argues that the traditional
conception of norms as rulelike linguistic entities is erroneous. Instead, norms
must be understood as patterns of rationally governed behavior maintained in
groups by acts of conformity. Using informal game theory in the analysis of
norms and customs, Hetcher breaks new ground by applying his theory of norms
to tort law and Internet privacy laws.
    This book will appeal to students and professionals in law, philosophy, and
political and social theory.

Steven A. Hetcher is Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School.
               Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law

                 general editor: gerald postema
           (university of north carolina, chapel hill)

                             advisory board
                     Jules Coleman (Yale Law School)
                    Antony Duff (University of Stirling)
                      David Lyons (Boston University)
                Neil MacCormick (University of Edinburgh)
                Stephen R. Munzer (U.C.L.A. Law School)
                    Phillip Pettit (Princeton University)
                     Joseph Raz (University of Oxford)
                 Jeremy Waldron (Columbia Law School)

                      Some other books in the series:
Stephen R. Munzer: A Theory of Property
R. G. Frey and Christopher W. Morris (eds.): Liability and Responsibility:
  Essays in Law and Morals
Robert F. Schopp: Automatism, Insanity, and the Psychology of Criminal
Steven J. Burton: Judging in Good Faith
Jules Coleman: Risks and Wrongs
Suzanne Uniacke: Permissible Killing: The Self-Defense Justification of
Jules Coleman and Allan Buchanan (eds.): In Harm’s Way: Essays in Honor
  of Joel Feinberg
Warren F. Schwartz (ed.): Justice in Immigration
John Fischer and Mark Ravizza: Responsibility and Control
R. A. Duff (ed.): Philosophy and the Criminal Law
Larry Alexander (ed.): Constitutionalism
R. Schopp: Justification Defenses and Just Convictions
Anthony Sebok: Legal Positivism in American Jurisprudence
William Edmundson: Three Anarchial Fallacies: An Essay on Political
Arthur Ripstein: Equality, Responsibility, and the Law
Heidi M. Hurd: Moral Combat
Steven J. Burton (ed.): “The Path of the Law” and Its Influence: The Legacy
  of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Jody S. Kraus and Steven D. Walt (eds.): The Jurisprudential Foundations of
  Corporate and Commercial Law
Christopher Kutz: Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age
Peter Benson (ed.): The Theory of Contract Law: New Essays
Philip Soper: The Ethics of Deference
Timothy Macklem: Beyond Comparison: Sex and Discrimination
Norms in a Wired World

      Steven A. Hetcher
       Vanderbilt University
  
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo

Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge  , UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521454360

© Steven A. Hetcher 2004

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published in print format

-   ---- eBook (EBL)
-   --- eBook (EBL)

-   ---- hardback
-   --- hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of s
for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
This book is dedicated to my mother, Melva K. Hetcher,
              my brother, Nick L. Hetcher,
    and the memory of my father, V. Louis Hetcher.
 They taught me to love. All else is icing on the cake.

    Acknowledgments                                            page xi
    Introduction                                                     1

            part i. the pattern conception of norms
 1 Rule Conception Versus Pattern Conception                       17
 2 Rational Norms                                                  38
 3 Norm Utilitarianism                                             79
 4 Emergent Moral Norms                                            96
 5 Critical Moral Norms                                           120

                     part ii. negligent norms
 6 The Traditional Rule of Custom                                 149
 7 The Evidentiary Rule of Custom                                 163
 8 A World of Dangerous Norms and Customs                         178
 9 Regulating the Rule of Custom to Create Safe Social Norms      198
10 Juror Norms and the Reasonable Person Standard                 215
11 Rejection of the Dominant Paradigm of Negligence               226

               part iii. cyberspace privacy norms
12 Harmful Online Personal Data Practices                         243
13 The Emergence of Online Privacy Entitlements                   261
14 Website Privacy Respect: Real and Feigned                      282
   Conclusion                                                     306

    Notes                                                         319
    Index                                                         412

This book has been many years in the making. It has grown and evolved over a
twelve-year period. I became interested in the philosophy behind norms while
completing my dissertation at the University of Illinois-Chicago. My interest
became infused with notions of rational actor theories from further graduate
studies at the University of Chicago. The legal influence began with my work
at the Yale Law School, and has continued the past six years while teaching at
Vanderbilt Law School.
    As with any project of this duration, the influences are many and the debts
too extensive to be fully acknowledged, let alone repaid. Nevertheless, an at-
tempt needs to be made. I wish to thank my dissertation committee, Gerald
Dworkin, Charles Chastain, Richard Kraut, and especially Russell Hardin, both
for his work on the committee and for the reading group on rational actor the-
ory that he led, and Shelley Kagan, who served as chair of the committee and
devoted uncounted hours to the project. Others whose arguments in various
venues advanced my learning and understanding of the project include Randy
Barnett, Brian Barry, Ann Bartow, Gary Becker, Emily Budziak, Paul Bullen,
Guido Calabresi, Martha Chamallas, Tom Christiano, John Christman, James
Coleman, Ingrid Creppel, Patrick Croskery, John Deigh, Robert Ellickson, Jon
Elster, Heidi Feldman, Mark Geistfeld, Steve Gilles, Walter Grinder, Jim
Johnson, Greg Keating, Jack Knight, Bill Landes, Tony Kronman, Mark Lemley,
Leonard Luggio, Richard McAdams, Tom Palmer, Stephen Perry, Eric Posner,
Richard Posner, Adam Pritchard, Tony Sebok, Ed Sherline, Ken Simons, Cass
Sunstein, and Ben Zipursky. Vaious colleagues have read parts and in many cases
all of prior drafts of the book and have shared their comments. These include
Mark Brandon, Lisa Bressman, Jon Bruce, Barry Friedman, John Goldberg,
Erin O’Hara, David Partlett, Bob Rasmussen, Suzanna Sherry, Kent Syverud,
Randall Thomas, Bob Thompson, Don Welch, Christopher Yoo, and Nick
Zeppos. Many students at Vanderbilt Law School served ably as research as-
sistants. These students are Robert Brewer, Derek Edwards, Kimberly Gilman,
xii                           Acknowledgments

Catherine Hora, Aaron Kamlay, Mark Plotkin, Linda Potapova, Ryan Raforth,
Tatjana Stoljarova, Beth Thomas, Angela Vitale, and Phillip Young. Invaluable
assistance also came from librarians and staff, including Alycia Buford, Martin
Cerjan, Janet Hirt, Stephen Jordan, Kathleen Kennedy-Jones, Abigail Larimer,
Emily Urban, and Kelley Walker.
   Finally, this book would not have been completed without the continued and
unflagging guidance and inspiration of Jules Coleman.

Social order may be regulated from above by the law, but its foundation is built
on norms and customs which combat social disarray, allowing people to make
meaningful and productive uses of their time and resources. The law’s ability to
promote a just social order can never be fully understood without taking account
of the concurrent influence of these informal social practices. In spite of this,
much jurisprudential writing has been devoid of sustained discussion of norms
and customs, focusing instead on individuals and governments. Individuals are
thought to be the locus of moral responsibility and rational decision making,
while governments are thought to be the source of legal obligations that form
the institutional backdrop against which moral and rational behavior occur. In
concentrating on the small individual below and the vast, looming state above,
those mid-sized objects of the social world – norms and customs – have been
   Recently, legal theorists have begun to pay attention to social norms.2 The
new legal literature draws on important work emanating from the social sciences
as well as from moral and political philosophy, evolutionary biology, and
anthropology.3 Nearly all the new work by legal scholars utilizes rational choice
methodology. This book also presents an analysis in the rational choice tradition
albeit one that incorporates moral theory into the analysis as well. One of the un-
derlying themes in this book is the compatibility of rational and moral analysis.
   The present work seeks an equilibrium between theory and legal applica-
tion.4 Part One develops a philosophical conception of norms, which is then
put to the test by applying it to tort law, first at an intermediate level of analysis
in Part Two and then at a micro level of analysis in Part Three.5
   Part One develops what will be called the pattern conception of social norms.
First, I argue that the traditional conception of norms as rulelike linguistic
entities is faulty. Instead, norms must be understood as patterns of rationally
governed behavior maintained in groups by acts of conformity. Even though
rules understood as linguistic entities still play a role in the pattern conception,
patterned, conformative behavior is the essence of a norm.
2                       norms in a wired world

    Informal game theory, which characterizes human behavior in terms of strate-
gic relationships between pairs or groups of people, will be utilized in the analy-
sis of norms and customs. Peoples’ patterns of behavior are modeled as iterated
games among players. By showing how these players might rationally conform
to certain practices, informal game-theoretic models offer a mechanism for ex-
plaining how these practices may be maintained over time. This is significant
as plausible mechanisms of this sort are in short supply in social science and
social theory.6
    Structurally speaking, social norms are either strategic or nonstrategic. I
divide strategic norms into two groups: those consisting of patterns of behavior
maintained by sanctions and those consisting of patterns of behavior maintained
without sanctions. The former are sanction-driven norms and the latter are
coordination norms.
    The sanction-driven norm is a broader structure than the Prisoner’s Dilemma
or collective action norm. The collective action problem is considered by some
to represent one of the fundamental paradoxes of rationality.7 The paradox
is thought to reside in the fact that there is a divergence between individual
and collective rationality; the collective of individuals will each do better if
all contribute toward the production of certain important collective goods such
as lighthouses, military defense, and roads, than if no one does, and yet for
each individual it is rational to defect from cooperation. Individual defection
is a dominant strategy, that is, each does better by not cooperating, regardless
of the choice made by others. Consequently, a rational actor will attempt to
free ride on the efforts of others. But because each has this preference, all
will free ride, and the collective good will not be produced. The focus here is
not on collective goods that are physical objects such as lighthouses but rather
on norms and customs. Norms and customs are not goods in the usual sense;
nevertheless, their provision may constitute a collective action problem.
    Sanction-driven norms may solve collective action problems. They may
solve a wider array of problems as well, such as the game of Chicken, or
Ellickson’s Specialized Labor Game.8
    Norms scholars in the legal academy have shown a particular interest in
sanction-driven norms, though not under that rubric. Ellickson provides an
account of how close-knit groups can develop efficient norms resulting from
the mutual sanctioning that is made possible by the repeated and overlapping in-
teractions among members of a close-knit group. Richard McAdams develops
an esteem-based account of sanctioning. Esteem sanctions are essentially free
and are thus capable of solving the second-order collective action problem that
is widely understood to arise with respect to the use of sanctions to solve a
first-order collective action problem. Eric Posner argues that norms help solve
iterated collective action problems by allowing people with low discount rates
to identify one another by means of signaling. What these accounts have in
common under the theory of norms that will be developed in Part One is that
                                  Introduction                                   3

each description of the process of norm emergence or maintenance integrally
involves sanctions, and so the resulting norm is a sanction-driven norm.
    In turn, the coordination norm is a broader structure than the convention.
According to David Lewis, conventions have the strategic structure of proper
coordination equilibria because everyone benefits from participating, and ev-
eryone benefits still more from the participation of others.9 The first feature,
Lewis suggests, explains why conventions are self-maintaining. The second
explains why conventions become norms. Lewis claims to capture the idea
of conventions as first discussed at length by Hume. I will argue, however,
that Hume’s fundamental insight about the deeply conventional structure of
social institutions should be formalized in a more complex manner than Lewis
suggests. On my account, proper coordination equilibria are but a subset of
coordination norms. Coordination norms are patterns of behavior made up of
act-types performed to achieve a coordination benefit. A coordination norm –
though not a proper coordination equilibrium, a coordination equilibrium, or
even an equilibrium – may be maintained.
    I also postulate a third category of norms, epistemic norms, which are best
understood in terms of informational economy rather than in strategic terms.
People often conform for epistemic reasons, that is, they conform to a preexis-
tent social practice, rather than expending the effort to gather new information,
in order to economize on the cost of information.10 Other theories have not
incorporated strategic and nonstrategic norms into a single account. This ap-
proach will be defended against leading norms accounts, such as those of David
Lewis, Edna Ullmann-Margalit, Robert Ellickson, Richard McAdams, and Eric
    A fundamental if implict tenet of much social theory is that conformity to
prominent social customs substantially explains human conduct; Homo soci-
ologicus is a conforming animal.12 The notion of conformity scarcely makes
an appearance in the work of rational choice theorists.13 The instinct of these
theorists is to view conformity as suspect. The appeal of the rational choice
approach is substantially diminished, however, if it cannot be shown to be com-
patible with the supposition of widespread conformity to norms, as conformity
is a fairly straightforward social phenomenon. To paraphrase the epigram from
Francis Bacon that begins Part One, while people may have a variety of diverse
thoughts running through their heads, the lion’s share of their behavior is best
explained by reference to reigning norms and customs. The pattern conception
of social norms reconciles rational choice with conformative behavior. In other
words, Homo economicus is also shown to be a conforming animal.
    In addition, the pattern conception integrates moral motivation into the ratio-
nal choice model of norms. Many moral theorists and sociologists have rejected
the rational choice approach outright because they have assumed that once
moral motivation is postulated, the rational choice framework loses coherence.
At root, people are either moral or egoistic, but the twain shall never meet.
4                       norms in a wired world

In fact, however, in ordinary morality, it is permissible to behave over a wide
range of activities in a self-regarding manner. There is then a significant overlap
between self-interested behavior and moral behavior. In addition, I will argue
that norms, once they are up and running, may generate a variety of moral obli-
gations and other moral relationships, depending on the type of norm at issue,
and the moral commitments of the participants.
    To the extent that they look at morality at all, rational choice theorists uni-
formly focus on consequentialist motivation.14 Rational actors seek to maxi-
mize; their utility functions just happen to include the interests of others. An
exclusive focus of consequentialist tendencies leads, however, to a cramped
conception of moral behavior. By contrast, the theory developed here allows
deontological, virtue-theoretic, and everyday moral motivation into the model
of norm functioning, along side consequentialist motivation. This assumption
has the virtue of realism.
    Along with rational choice theorists, moral theorists have neglected to ac-
knowledge the importance of conformity in the lives of ordinary people, for
whom Kantian, Aristotelian, or utilitarian reflection is rare, while conformity
to dominant moral practices is pervasive. The result is a sterile conception of
morality with only a glancing connection to the complex normative texture of
most people’s lives. The notion of conformity has played almost no role in
traditional moral theory. Conformity is suspect. One might easily suppose that
conformers are not moral at all; they are merely conforming. The fundamental
question then is whether moral actors can consistently conform to norms. If
conformity is central to norms, and if norms are to be maintained by moral
individuals, conformity must be acceptable to the moral individual.
    I will argue that norm conformity, properly construed, is antithetical neither
to ordinary morality nor to most critical moral theories. I will make this argument
for the first best world from the perspective of the critical theorist, which is the
world in which the population of actors share her moral outlook, and for the
second best world, the real world, in which the moral actor comes in constant
contact with heterogeneous norms constituted of conforming actions by people
who represent a variety of moral and nonmoral outlooks.
    The moral analysis leads to a typology of norms that parallels the one that
emerges from the study of rational norms. There are three basic types: coordi-
nation moral norms, saction-driven moral norms, and epistemic moral norms.
This parallel structure demonstrates unity of the normative.
    Chapter One defends the pattern conception against the dominant rule
conception. Because norms and customs are behavioral patterns rather than
linguistic rules, they have rational structures rather than grammatical structures.
Chapter Two develops an account of these structures based on a Hobbesian
assumption of narrow self-interest.15 Chapter Three maintains this motiva-
tional assumption but examines the various norm structures from the normative
perspective of utilitarian moral theory. Chapter Four then develops an account
                                  Introduction                                   5

based on a broader Humean conception of rationality, one that is consistent
with the existence of genuinely moral motivation.16 This position is called
predominant egoism.17 On this motivational assumption, genuinely moral
norms may emerge as a result of norm conformity. Finally, Chapter Five exam-
ines the potential for norm maintenance based on the motivational assumptions
of leading critical moral-theoretic approaches.
    In combination, the chapters of Part One will seek to set out an account of
norms that unifies rational actor and moral theoretic truths into a coherent whole.
The goal is not to defend one particular set of normative assumptions over others.
Quite the opposite, the goal is to develop a conception of norms and customs
that is not dependent on any particular set of normative assumptions, either
assumptions regarding the normative motivations of the actors or assumptions
regarding the critical normative goals of the overall system. In Part One, I
develop a theory of norms and customs, and in the remainder of the book I test the
theory by plugging it into substantive legal debates. If the theory is a good one,
it should work well in these applied contexts, serving to illuminate important
applied areas of the law. Alternatively, if the account contains wrinkles that
need to be ironed out, or is fundamentally wrongheaded beyond repair, these
facts should become apparent once we have the opportunity to see the theory
in action.
    A number of scholars have drawn attention to dysfunctional properties of
norms.18 In Parts Two and Three, the legal norms I examine will be seen to
display some significant dysfunctional characteristics. In Part Two, I explore
the manner by which norms of significance to tort law, that is, norms that
revolve around injury-producing behavior, may emerge and be maintained,
despite possessing significantly dangerous characteristics. Part Three looks at a
different sort of dysfunctionality, norms that allow for websites to falsely signal
respect for user informational privacy, thereby fooling consumers.
    Part Two will apply the pattern conception to tort law. Two connected issues
will be examined: the proper role for custom in determining negligence, and,
the role of the jury in injecting its norms into substantive applications of the
reasonable person test. These are the two most significant roles played by custom
in tort law.
    In this epoch of accelerating change, it might be thought that custom was no
longer capable of playing a prominent role in the maintenance of a safe social
order, for how can customary practices evolve quickly enough to keep pace
with the rapid changes that characterize modern society. In law in particular, it
might seem that traditional, informal solutions should be rejected in favor of
more rationalized and centralized means of affecting social order.
    Just this sort of rejection of the dead hand of the past seems to be the lesson
at the heart of the best-known tort case dealing with the rule of custom, The
T. J. Hooper. In this case, Judge Learned Hand famously observed that industry
customs may lag behind what is required by due care.19 The fact that tug boat
6                       norms in a wired world

operators customarily did not use radios was not legally dispositive of the issue
of negligence, as the whole tug boat industry may have negligently failed to
adopt the use of radios as a means of avoiding storm loss. In other words,
custom may be evidence as to the proper standard of care, but it is not the
standard itself.20 This standard must be independently ascertained by rational
evaluation of all the competing interests involved. Hand seems clearly to be
throwing off the yoke of the past as a sure guide to future conduct. Instead, the
course of the law’s development must be opened to rational appraisal if society
is to prevail over the blind prejudices of the past.
    It turns out, however, that custom runs deeper in tort law than is suggested
by the rendition of Hand just alluded to. While the role of custom in tort has not
diminished, it has changed. Part Two begins in Chapter Six with a look at the
historical and jurisprudential underpinnings of the rule of custom. The shifting
relationship between custom and law is first examined. At one time, certain cus-
toms were law itself – customary law. Custom no longer has this exalted status;
nevertheless, customs may serve as sources of law. Chapter Six examines the
historically important example of customary easements in land. Looking at the
strategic structures of some prominent examples of customary land usages, we
will see that the norms motivating the courts’ decisions regarding these usages
appear to be a mixture of consequentialist and nonconsequentialist impulses. In
particular, in certain sorts of situations involving induced detrimental reliance
on the part of customary users of land, courts have been inclined to find cus-
tomary easements. The role of custom in this instance is striking; what would
otherwise be a tortuous trespass instead becomes a use by right.
    Chapters Seven through Nine explore the development of the modern rule
of custom. The rule of custom has played a venerable role in tort doctrine.
Modern tort law mainly follows the negligence standard according to which
one will be found liable only if one acted negligently in causing an injury.
Negligence is the failure to exhibit due care or ordinary care. Leading early
cases established the connection between “ordinary” behavior and “customary
behavior.”21 Ordinary behavior is simply customary behavior. Courts look to
whether an injurious action conformed to an accepted custom or social norm
in determining whether an action was negligent. Injurers attempt to establish
their conformity to custom as evidence of due care while victims attempt to
establish the injurer’s failure to conform as evidence of negligence.
    Leading decisions by Holmes and Hand expanded the role of custom by hold-
ing that custom may not only be dispositive regarding the question of negligence
but also convey less powerful yet relevant evidence regarding negligence.22 This
finding in effect expanded the options of courts to apply the rule of custom in
a more nuanced fashion. Modern tort law has alternatively endorsed two main
rules of custom, which I label the per se and the evidentiary rules. The intro-
ductory doctrinal discussion in Chapter Seven focuses on the manner in which
the older per se rule, whereby conformity to custom established the fact of due
                                   Introduction                                   7

care, was replaced by an evidentiary rule, which holds that conformity may be
evidence of, but is not dispositive of, due care.
    Understanding why the evidentiary rule won out will be helpful in gaining a
larger perspective on the relationship between custom and tort, as an adequate
account of why courts have gravitated toward the evidentiary rule has remained
elusive. Chapter Seven considers two initially plausible candidates. The first,
developed in the classic article, Custom and Negligence, by Clarence Morris,
argues that juries will be less biased against defendants in their deliberations
when they are made to appreciate that the defendant’s injurious behavior con-
forms to widespread industry practices.23 The second account is the traditional,
positive economic account of Landes and Posner, which predicts that the per se
rule will be found in situations in which there is actual or potential bargaining
between the parties, but not otherwise.24 When parties are able to bargain, they
will be able to reach welfare-maximizing agreements on their own, and these
agreements will be represented in customary practices. Accordingly, courts
should insulate the practices by means of the per se rule.
    I will argue that each of these accounts fails to explain the emergence of the
evidentiary rule as the dominant modern rule. Morris’ account fails to explain
why there may be genuine reasons that conformity to custom has epistemic
value with regard to the issue of negligence, once concerns regarding jury bias
have been factored in. Landes and Posner’s account wrongly predicts that the
per se rule will prevail in bargaining contexts. I will demonstrate that the eviden-
tiary rule is the dominant modern rule in both bargaining and non-bargaining
contexts. Moreover, Landes and Posner’s account does not explain the main
exception to the modern rule of custom, which applies the per se rule to the
injuries caused by physicians and other professionals, despite the fact that they
are neither more nor less likely than nonprofessionals to engage in the sort of
bargaining discussed by Landes and Posner. By contrast, I will offer an ex-
planation for this phenomena that draws on the important rational structure of
tort law. I will argue that the norms of physicians and other professionals are
often given strong deference, due to the superior epistemic warrant possessed
by those knowledgeable in a field requiring expert training. In other words, my
account relies on the supposition that certain important norms of professionals
have epistemic structures.
    In the process of evaluating Landes and Posner’s account, it will become
apparent that informal game theory helps to provide a better explanation of
negligence law’s use of social custom. On the account that I will set out, there
are four relevant modalities of the rule of custom. The per se rule may be justified
when the custom at issue is thought to be efficient, as this rule will protect the
conforming action from going to the jury where the injurer might be found to
be negligent. The evidentiary rule will make more sense when the custom at
issue is not optimal but welfare-enhancing nevertheless, as this rule encourages
juries to give deference to the custom, while at the same time allowing the jury
8                       norms in a wired world

to find negligence if a superior custom appears attainable. The evidentiary rule
may take a weak form under which conformity is evidence of due care or a
strong form under which conformity serves as a rebuttable presumption of due
care. Finally, the rule that accords conformity no priority may be suitable if the
custom at issue is either neutral or detrimental to the production of welfare.
    The goal will be to determine the efficiency conditions for the sorts of norms
and customs that matter to tort law. This task is complex for not only are
there four versions of the rule of custom, but there are also three different
rational structures of customs to which these versions may apply. Practically
all previous applications of informal game theory to law have focused on the
Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) or collective action problem.25 One would naturally
suppose that tort law would take an interest in PD-structured customs because
tort law is concerned with injuries, and many PD customs present a situation
in which a person is repeatedly in a position to cause injury to others, either
by failing to conform to a safe PD custom or by conforming to a dangerous
PD custom. While PD customs, and sanction-driven customs more generally, are
indeed of great interest, the examples I consider will demonstrate that epistemic
customs and coordination customs may also be important sources of injuries
and so are equally of concern to tort law.
    In order to determine whether a custom in a particular case is efficient,
courts will need to know which type of custom is involved, as different sets
of welfare-maximization markers apply to each of the three types of custom.
Factors such as whether the incidence of injury falls on conformers or third
parties, whether either or both of these groups are close-knit, whether the con-
former has superior epistemic warrant, whether the Kaldor-Hicks test favors
conformers, and whether an optimizing alternative practice is available matter
differentially depending on the type of custom at issue.
    Combining various possible rules of custom, various possible rational struc-
tures of custom, and the various welfare markers, thirty-seven distinct modali-
ties of tort custom will be identified in Chapter Nine. The development of this
schema calls into doubt the basic justification of the dominance accorded to
the evidentiary rule by Holmes, Hand, and their modern followers. After all,
only eight of the thirty-seven applications of the rule of custom call for the
evidentiary rule. The per se rule is preferable for nineteen of the situations; the
no-priority rule, for ten of the situations; and the presumption-shifting rule, for
eight of the situations.
    The conclusion will be irresistable, then, that welfare-maximizing courts
will need to pay attention to a number of features of customs, and not simply
whether there was a bargaining situation between the parties or a sanctioning
situation surrounding the parties. In general, courts have not demonstrated a
sophisticated understanding of the relevant complexities of customs. Although
courts have to some extent accorded different legal treatment to some of the
different types of custom, to all appearances they have done so by means of an
                                   Introduction                                   9

intuitive methodology that fails to articulate explicitly the rationale for applying
particular rules to particular structures.
    The analysis in Chapters Seven through Nine labors under the assumption
that courts are intent to maximize welfare in their decisions regarding the choice
of the particular version of the rule of custom to apply in particular cases.
Notice that this assumption is neutral regarding the motivations of the various
other actors besides the judges. The lay members of the community may all be
narrowly self-interested utility maximizers, they may be predominant egoists,
or they may exhibit some other species of motivation entirely. The last two
chapters of Part Two will develop a more substantive account with regard to the
motivations of at least some of the participants other than judges, namely, the
jurors. I will argue that jurors, and their norms and customs, play a crucial yet
generally underappreciated role in negligence law, at least as judged by the two
dominant accounts, the economic account and the corrective justice account.
    The power of either litigant to request a jury is both a practically univer-
sal and a practically unique feature of American tort law. Despite the fact
that most cases settle, the prospect of a case going to trial is always in the
background, influencing litigation tactics, expected outcomes, and therefore
settlement negotiations.26 In Chapter Ten, I develop a five-stage account of
the jury’s role in a tort suit that makes its way through trial. I will argue that
the practice of tort law gives the informal social norms of jurors an essential
role in constituting the actual substance of the negligence standard. As a causal
matter, it is this de facto standard, serving as an instantiation of the abstractly
formulated formal standard promulgated by the judge via the jury instructions,
that determines the final outcome in tort suits.
    Because the de facto standard plays an essential role in the outcome of tort
litigation, any entitlement created by the litigation is causally influenced in its
creation from below by juror norms, as well as from above by the jury in-
structions conveying the formal liability standard. The bottom/up component
of this bidirectional causal process will be referred to as the jury norm effect.
Chapter Ten will provide an account of the particular substantive normative
forces that are typically unleashed by means of the jury norm effect. These
forces will be seen to include everyday analogs of strict liability and direct
causation, comparative negligence and redistribution. In their efforts to pro-
vide a unified normative account, the dominant paradigms fail to notice these
sui generis normative forces that fill out the substantive content of negligence
    Given the jury’s important role in the actual practice of tort law, there is
a puzzle; why is so little attention paid to the jury in the dominant accounts
of negligence? I will argue that the answer to this question is that these ac-
counts exhibit a bias that in another context Robert Ellickson has labeled “legal
centralism.”27 Legal centralists wrongly focus on top/down formal explanations
of the source of liability entitlements at the expense of bottom/up explanations
10                      norms in a wired world

that would take account of the casual impacts of informal social norms, such
as those that might flow from the deliberations of juries.
   Chapter Eleven will look in greater detail at the dominant accounts of tort –
the economic account and the corrective justice account – and the means
by which each fails to pay proper attention to the important role played by
juror norms. The economic conception receives its fullest expression in the
Restatement (Third) of Torts.28 The Restatement only countenances a role for
social norms in the special situation in which there is an instantiated custom
in place, such that either the defendant pleads conformity as a defense or the
plaintiff seeks to demonstrate lack of conformity as evidence of negligence.
What is missing is any acknowledgment of the prevasive role that social norms
play in providing grist for the jury’s concrete application of the reasonable per-
son standard. This process may occur not only in situations in which custom is
explicitly introduced as evidence by one of the parties, but in all situations in
which lay juries deliberate.
   The Restatement’s account is misguided, apparently due to its legal central-
ism, which leads the restaters to assume, largely without argument, the dominant
causal efficacy of the Hand Test interpretation of the reasonable person stan-
dard on the deliberations of juries, and hence on the outcomes of negligence
suits. Based on the analysis and empirical evidence examined in Chapter Ten,
I will argue to the contrary that there is every reason to suppose that jurors do
not engage in Hand Test analysis but instead draw from their heterogeneous
array of everyday norms and customs when providing concrete substance to the
abstract reasonable person standard in order to come to a decision on the issue
of negligence. This discussion will conclude with an examination of an inno-
vative attempt by Stephen Gilles to insulate the dominant conception from the
line of criticism I offer. Gilles argues that, properly understood, the Hand Test
actually involves a morally attractive Hand Norm that will tend to be expressed
as a result of factor balancing by juries. Despite the attractiveness of this First
Restatement approach as compared to the Restatement approach, it will in the
end be rejected as well.
   Next, Chapter Eleven will examine the corrective justice approach to neg-
ligence, focusing on Jules Coleman’s influential account. Coleman sets out to
provide a pragmatic explanation of tort law that is sensitive to the two-party
structure of litigation and the justice concerns raised by one party’s injury of
the other party. The jury plays no role in Coleman’s account. It thus remains to
be explained why real-world juries would promote solely or mainly corrective
justice norms.
   I will conclude that there is a need for a new negligence account that accords
the jury conceptual space commensurate with its role in the actual legal institu-
tion of tort law as practiced in America. The jury norm effect allows the norms
of ordinary people to exert a direct causal effect over formal, legal outcomes.
From the perspective of democratic theory, this is an anti-elitist, liberal feature
                                  Introduction                                 11

of American tort law, which distinguishes it from its counterparts abroad.29 Ac-
cording to one core tenet of pragmatist jurisprudence, important legal practices
should be analyzed in order to uncover the normative principles embodied in the
practices.30 Tort jury practices arguably embody important liberal principles of
political participation, value pluralism, and separation of powers.31 In its focus
on welfarist concerns or justice between the litigants, the dominant accounts
fail to countenance these important values embodied in American tort law.
    As noted, law and norms theory is developed in the book at three levels;
pure theory, intermediate-level, and micro-level analysis. Part Three takes the
analysis down to a micro level, looking at the specific issue of the formal and
informal regulation of online personal data collection. Because this is one of the
most pressing contemporary public policy concerns, it poses a serious challenge
to the theory of law and norms.
    Norms and customs are patterns of behavior. Patterns of behavior have tradi-
tionally existed in physical space. With the creation and ongoing construction
of cyberspace, an increasingly rich new world is coming into being. Physical
space plus cyberspace equals a wired world – and, increasingly, an unwired
world as well – in which manifold social norms will emerge in the future. In-
juries will increasingly occur in this world. The most significant type of injury
to emerge thus far is injury to one’s interest in personal data privacy. Incur-
sions on one’s online privacy do not currently rise to the level of a tort. This
will likely change over time, either because of increasingly intrusive activi-
ties or because sensibilities change. The paucity of formal regulation of online
personal data collection has been conducive to the emergence of informal on-
line norms to regulate this activity. Part Three studies the emergence of these
    Over the past few years, the norms governing personal data interactions
between consumers and certain websites have changed significantly, albeit un-
evenly. There is an increasing moral sensitivity on the part of many websites
regarding the commercial collection and use of personal data. In general, the
social meaning of personal data collection has changed from a morally neutral
to a morally charged status.32 Consumers now perceive a general right to pri-
vacy in cyberspace that includes respectful treatment of personal data.33 This
change arose not by accident or necessity, but from the intentional behavior of
actors possessing an interest in promoting online privacy. Some of these actors
seek to maximize their own welfare, and consumer privacy is merely a means
to this end, while other actors appear to have genuine moral regard for the data
privacy of others. The former are privacy norm entrepreneurs. I will designate
the latter actors as privacy norm proselytizers.34 For reasons they themselves
accept, privacy norm proselytizers seek to arouse the moral consciousness of
consumers vis-` -vis websites’ collection and use of their personal data.35
    In Part Three, I develop a supply and demand model of the emergence of
website privacy norms. Chapter Twelve first examines the industry’s initial
12                      norms in a wired world

efforts at self-regulation. These efforts, by and large, failed. Self-regulation
failed at first because of the strategic structure of the relationship between
consumers and websites on the one hand, and websites with one another, on the
other hand. Specifically, websites are in a coordination game with one another,
not an iterated collective action problem. Efforts to educate websites on the
importance of privacy to consumers, and on the connection between allaying
consumer privacy fears and the promotion of consumer confidence, did not
work to change website behavior in the manner desired by the FTC. Nor will
consumers be able to band together to demand more respectful privacy practices
on the part of websites owing to the large-scale collective action problem they
face in organizing their efforts. A number of commentators concluded that
the failure of self-regulation mandated that the government step in and take a
more direct role in requiring respectful informational practices on the part of
websites. As the discussion in Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen will indicate,
however, little direct government regulation of website practices has occurred
thus far. Nevertheless, norms between websites and consumers have emerged.
Some sites have begun genuine efforts to provide respect for user privacy, but
many more sites have changed nothing, or worse, simulated respect in a cynical
effort to get something for nothing.
    Chapter Thirteen develops the demand side analysis. The chapter looks at
how privacy norm proselytizers changed the social meaning of data collec-
tion through education, legislative efforts, and attempts to change consumers’
moral outlook on the practices of websites. The set of concepts that increas-
ingly surround the practice in popular discourse is evidence that consumers
are developing a more complex normative understanding. Notably, interactions
between websites and their visitors are now frequently framed in terms of pri-
vacy. Not long ago, the concept of informational privacy did not exist in either
popular discourse or the moral theory lexicon, but increasingly, a consumer’s
entitlement to control her personal data is generally recognized. In economic
terms, these events can be viewed as an increase in the demand for personal
data privacy. The increase in demand in turn has led to an increase in supply,
which will be the topic of Chapter Fourteen.
    As consumers increasingly perceive an entitlement, there is a corresponding
tendency for them to feel moral outrage at websites that fail to respect data
privacy. Consumers who feel that they are disrespected may seek to punish
websites by taking their business elsewhere, reciprocating the disrespect by
providing the website with false personal information,36 or sanctioning the
website through negative gossip.37 Because of this pressure, numerous websites
have been inclined to increase the supply of respectful privacy treatment. I will
utilize the account of rational norms developed in Part One of the book to
model these interactions between websites and consumers. What we find is a
strategic interaction of respect and trust, in which websites may be interested
                                  Introduction                                  13

in exchanging respectful treatment toward consumers for trust on the part of
these consumers.38
    While some websites have begun to cooperate, as already noted, the vast
majority of websites have to date displayed no genuine regard for the privacy
interests of users. This raises an interesting question; why has a substantial
increase in demand not created a substantial increase in supply? In answer to
this question, I will argue in Chapter Fourteen that the simulation of respect is
plausibly in the narrow self-interest of many sites, as compared to their provision
of genuine respect.
    Chapter Fourteen will explore two accounts as to why many websites might
think it was sensible to simulate respect rather than provide the real thing.
These accounts are derived as applications of two of the theories of norms
explored in Part One. On Eric Posner’s theory, as already noted, norms are
sets of individual signaling acts, each of which is meant to communicate that
the signaler has a low discount rate and so is a good type with whom to en-
ter into cooperative relationships. On my theory, norms are patterns of ratio-
nally motivated conforming behavior. Each of these conceptions of a norm
provides a distinct explanation of the dubious quality of most extant website
privacy norms. Posner’s signaling model would hold that websites are signaling
their cooperative type but that all actual cooperation will occur in the future.
On my theory, depending on the sorts of strategic considerations outlined in
Part One, many websites are best viewed as already engaging in the cooperative
activity of providing genuine respect for user privacy in exchange for trust on
the part of their users. Thus, Posner’s account fails to explain the emergence
of these norms. Nor can McAdams’s esteem-based emergence account provide
an explanation, as websites are companies, not people, and it would appear that
they would not value esteem. Last, the online personal data collection environ-
ment is not plausibly characterized as close-knit, and so Ellickson’s account
will not provide insight into the emergence of the new data collection norms.
    Finally, after the conclusion of the analysis in Part Three, the book’s conclu-
sion will seek to provide an overall evaluation of the book’s effort to develop
the pattern conception of norms and customs and then test the theory’s mettle
by applying it to tort law and informational privacy law. I will conclude that the
overall effect of these applications is to indicate that the conception of norms as
patterns of behavior makes the most sense of the role that norms and customs
have played in these important areas of the law. This is evidence that the pattern
conception is the best conception of norms and customs.
                                 part one
              T H E PAT T E R N C O N C E P T I O N
                        OF NORMS

     Men’s thoughts are much according to their inclinations; their discourse and
     speeches according to their learning and infused opinions; but their deeds are
     after as they have been accustomed.†
                                                                     Francis Bacon

†   Quoted in Carleton Kemp Allen, Law in the Making 64 (6th ed. 1958) (1927).
          Rule Conception Versus Pattern

        Practice has introduced rules rather than rules have directed practice.1
                                                              Samuel Johnson

In part due to the diversity of disciplinary approaches to the topic of norms, a
number of definitions of the term norm circulate. This first chapter will defend
what I will call the pattern conception of a norm. On this view, a norm is a
pattern of rationally governed behavior, instantiated in a group, maintained by
acts of conformity. In contrast, on the dominant conception, norms are inherently
rulelike, that is, norms are statements that individuals and groups generate and
promulgate to guide their conduct. I will refer to this as the rule conception or
rule view. This chapter will argue that the rule conception is deficient and, in
the end, beyond repair.
   Because norms and customs are behavioral patterns and not linguistic rules,
they have rational structures rather than grammatical structures. The next two
chapters develop an account of these structures based on a Hobbesian assump-
tion of narrow self-interest. Subsequently, Chapter Four develops an account
based on a broader Humean conception of rationality, one that is consistent
with the existence of genuinely moral motivation. This position is called
predominant egoism. On this motivational assumption, moral norms may
emerge as a result of norm conformity.
   Finally, Chapter Five will examine the potential for norm maintenance based
on the motivational assumptions of leading critical moral-theoretic approaches.
In this manner, the chapters of Part One will successively layer moral theory
on top of rational theory, going from the purely rational to the purely moral.

                    I. The Received View: Norms as Rules
The rule conception will first be stated in outline form; then representative
passages from the scholarly literature that support the various tenets of the
18                the pattern conception of norms

account will be examined. Next, the intuitive plausibility of this account will
be considered. Finally, the rule conception will be argued to be faulty, despite
its initial plausibility.
    The account developed here will not attempt to provide the necessary and
sufficient conditions for a norm based on the rule conception. Nor will the
account necessarily coincide exactly with the views of any one rule theorist.
Instead, the following analysis will seek to capture the characteristics found
most broadly in the literature regarding norms. These various elements will
then be combined into a hybrid account. This is a desirable approach as there is
currently no canonical definition of the term norm in either the social scientific
or philosophical literature. Subsequently this hybrid account will be attacked
and then replaced by the pattern conception.
    In this first section, the five major tenets of the rule view will be discussed;
then, two tenets, which are subsidiary to the first five, will be added.

                            A. The Rule Conception
               tenets of the rule conception of norms
1. Norms are linguistic or verbal entities capable of being called up as occurrent
   or spoken thought.
2. Norms are prescriptive.
3. Norms are normative.
4. Norms are shared.
5. Norm obedience is maintained through sanctions.

    The first tenet specifies that norms are linguistic or verbal entities that may
manifest as occurrent or spoken thought. The notion of occurrent thought may
be understood as thought that occurs as a verbal string of words, internally rather
than externally. For example, if one recites the lyrics to a song in one’s head
without moving one’s vocal chords, one is experiencing the song as occurrent
thought. On the rule view, people experience, or are capable of experiencing,
as occurrent thought the norms to which they contemplate allegiance.
    The rule conception fits with one of Western thought’s central orthodox-
ies, namely, that people willfully choose the actions they take. A free act of
acceptance is, after all, one that is deliberated consciously. In order to con-
sciously accept a norm, one must, to invoke a common metaphor, hold the
norm before the mind’s eye and then make a decision as to whether the under-
lying practice is worth following.2 Conforming to norms may become routine
in that the process of conscious reflection may be circumvented; nevertheless,
this highly intentional model is the paradigm case on the rule account.3
    The second and third tenets of the rule conception are that norms are prescrip-
tive and that norms are normative. These two tenets are best discussed together.
                  Rule Conception Versus Pattern Conception                         19

Although the concepts of prescriptivity and normativity are often used in an
overlapping manner, it will help to better understand the rule conception if these
notions are kept separate. Though not acknowledging this distinction as such,
rule theorists typically take norms to be both prescriptive and normative.
    The act of prescribing simply involves one person telling another how to
behave with the intention of thereby influencing her behavior. On this view,
prescriptive language has an inherently rhetorical or persuasive function.4 It
need not have a normative function, however. Usually, one only prescribes
behavior that one believes is rational or moral, either for oneself or for the
person to whom one is prescribing. This need not be the case however.
    If one thinks a certain type of behavior ought to be performed, it is sensible
to tell others to perform it, that is, to prescribe the behavior. But in principle, one
can tell others to behave in a manner that one does not think is either rational or
moral, and one can think others ought to act in a certain manner without telling
them that they should do so. Thus, prescriptivity does not entail normativity,
and vice versa.
    The normativity tenet holds that norms are statements describing behavior
of a certain sort, namely, behavior that ought to be performed. This conception
is neutral between various kinds of oughts, although the ought of rationality
and the ought of morality are the concern of the present work. The same idea
may be expressed by means of the notion of acceptance of a norm. When one
accepts a norm, one thinks it ought to be acted on.
    The fourth tenet of the rule conception is that norms are shared. This simply
means that the rules are accepted not merely by individuals but rather by groups
of individuals. Even though the rule must be shared or common to the group, it
is not necessary that it be acted on in order to count as a norm. It is enough that
the rule be shared in the sense that the members think it ought to be acted on.
    The fifth and final of the major tenets of the rule conception is that norms
involve sanctions. Sanctions may be positive or negative, that is, agents may
be rewarded for conforming to norms or penalized for not conforming. A dis-
tinction is commonly drawn between informal and formal sanctions. Informal
sanctions include verbal admonishments, exclusion from groups, and damage
to reputation. Formal sanctions include fines and imprisonment. Different rule
theorists place different weight on the role of sanctions. For some, it is because
of sanctions that people conform to norms, while sanctions play a secondary
role on other accounts. Those who think that sanctions are always necessary
conceive of norm following as inherently onerous. Other theorists recognize,
however, that some norms are conformed to, apart from the existence or effi-
ciency of sanctions.
    The following two tenets are implied by the five main tenets.

6. Norm acceptance occurs through transmission of the verbal rule.
7. It is unproblematic to detect which norms are accepted.
20                the pattern conception of norms

   Tenet Six falls out easily from the preceding characterization of the rule
conception. Because norms are linguistic entities, they may be spread through
a population simply by stating them, either in spoken or written form. Others
may be inclined to adopt the behavior described by the rule, either out of
the relevant normative considerations or to avoid the sanctions that will often
accompany the prescription.
   Tenet Seven, which states that norms are detected unproblematically, is gen-
erally not discussed by rule theorists as such. But they write as if it is the case.
One sees easily why rule theorists should think that norms are detected unprob-
lematically. Norms are simple in nature, as witnessed by the fact that they are
able to be examined occurrently or expressed to others. Thus, detecting them
in particular situations should pose no problems. One simply listens to what
prescriptions are uttered, or looks to the regularities of behavior, and infers
which rules condone such behavior.
   The next part will take a concentrated look at representative passages from
important rule theorists to test the accuracy of the preceding characterization.

                      B. Defenders of the Rule Conception
Max Weber, one of early modernity’s most prescient social theorists, defines
the validity of a norm in terms of whether it is followed by a sufficient number
of people. Implicit in this conception is the notion that a norm that does not
have sufficient support is not valid, but is a norm nonetheless. Thus for Weber,
behavior is not necessary for the definition of a norm. The norm is the linguistic
entity contemplated by the members of the group, who may or may not enshrine
it as valid by means of their collective behavior.5
    Talcott Parsons, Weber’s most-noted American follower, explicitly defines
a norm as a linguistic entity. He writes: “A norm is a verbal description of a
concrete course of action . . . regarded as desirable, combined with an injunc-
tion to make certain future actions conform to this course.”6 Parsons’s short
definition contains three of the five major tenets of the rule conception. Norms
are seen as “verbal,” which captures the occurrent linguistic tenet; norms are re-
garded as “desirable,” which captures the normativity tenet; and finally, norms
are delivered with an “injunction,” that is, they are prescribed behavior.
    George Homans provides the following characterization. A norm is an “idea
in the minds of the members of a group, an idea that can be put in the form of a
statement.”7 In Homans’s mention of ideas, each capable of being expressed as
a “statement,” we have a clear expression of the thesis that norms are linguistic
entities capable of occurrent expression, for if norms may be stated externally,
they may be stated internally. His mention of norms as residing in the “mem-
bers of a group,” captures the fourth tenet, which holds that norms are shared.
Elsewhere, Homans claims that norms, “are not behavior itself but what people
think behavior ought to be.”8 This is a clear expression of the normativity thesis.
                  Rule Conception Versus Pattern Conception                      21

    Another clear statement of the rule conception comes from Robin Williams:
“Norms . . . are rules of conduct; they specify what should and should not be
done by various kinds of social actors in various kinds of situation.”9 This char-
acterization explicitly equates norms with “rules.” In addition, by containing a
clear expression of the conception of norms as statements telling agents how
they ought to behave, it emphasizes the normativity tenet.
    Before giving her own conception of a norm, Francesca Cancian says,
“norms can be loosely defined as shared conceptions of appropriate or expected
action. . . . Most definitions also include the idea that people are rewarded if they
conform to norms and are punished if they deviate.”10 This short passage touches
on three of the tenets of the rule conception. The notion of “shared conceptions”
captures the tenet that holds that norms are shared; the mention of “appropriate
or expected behavior” captures the normativity tenet; and the reference to
people being “rewarded” or “punished” touches on the sanctions tenet.
    The cited volume is an analysis based on Cancian’s field studies of Mayan
Indians. Her research methodology provides us with insight into her conception
of a norm. She sees herself as coming to possess the list of norms held by the
Mayan community under study by the method of having individuals list the
norms they accept. Implicit in this method is the belief that norms are essentially
the statements written down in the course of this procedure. Apparently then,
she holds a view of norms consistent with the tenet that states that norms are
capable of accessible linguistic expression.
    Along with the preceding explicitly definitional remarks about norms, the
following writers make comments about norms that support the rule conception.
The political theorist, Michael Taylor, writes: “I shall take it that a norm is
generally conformed to and is such that nonconformity, when observed, is
generally punished.”11 The notion that norms are “generally conformed to”
is close to the idea that norms are shared. Taylor’s mention of punishment for
nonconformity touches on tenet five which holds that norms involve sanctions.
Similarly, John Finley Scott defines norms as “patterns of sanctions.”12
    Consider the following characterizations of a norm by philosophers. Allan
Gibbard writes, “A norm, we might say, is a linguistically encoded precept.”13
Later, he adds, “By the norm itself, I suggest, we should mean simply a prescrip-
tion or imperative that gives the rule a sophisticated observer could formulate.”14
Here Gibbard deviates from tenet one slightly, for his view is not that norm fol-
lowing necessarily involves the occurrent consideration of the norm, but just
that such an occurrent formulation is possible. He clearly holds to the prescrip-
tivity tenet, however, as witnessed by his mention of a norm as a prescription
or imperative.
    Edna Ullman-Margalit provides the following “rough characterization” of
a social norm: “A social norm is a prescribed guide for conduct or action
which is generally complied with by members of a society.”15 This notion of a
norm as a “prescribed guide” is roughly an amalgam of the prescriptivity and
22                the pattern conception of norms

normativity tenets. Elsewhere, Ullmann-Margalit makes it clear that she has in
mind a linguistic conception of the “prescribed guide,” which is in line with the
first tenet, which holds that norms are verbal in nature. Finally, her mention of
general compliance reflects the notion that norms are shared.
    Ellickson defines norms as one of the five types of “rules” that make up a
system of social control. Rules are categorized based on the source of the “rules
of behavior and [the] sanctions that back up those rules.”16 First-party control
comes from within the actor and is enforced by self-sanction. Second-party
control is exerted by the other party with whom the primary actor is dealing
and is enforced by personal self-help. Norms are one example of third-party
control. They are enforced by nonhierarchical third-party enforcers.17 The other
sources of third-party control are private organizations and government. Private
organizations provide organizational rules and sanctions, while government
provides legal rules backed by state enforcement.
    Richard McAdams writes, “[B]y norm I mean a decentralized behavioral
standard that individuals feel obligated to follow, and generally do follow.”18
McAdams here says norms are standards. A standard is a linguistic entity.
Norms are behavioral standards of a certain sort, ones that people feel obli-
gated to follow. McAdams states, “I follow the literature that views norms as
obligations.”19 An obligation is not a pattern of behavior or a social regularity.
An obligation has an intentional, mental, abstract, or subjective existence. Obli-
gations do not exist physically in the manner that a pattern of behavior does.
McAdams’s view is that norms are behavioral standards that govern behavior.20
    The preceding examination demonstrates that there is a good amount of uni-
formity in the various characterizations of a norm, whether they come from
social scientists or philosophers. The key consideration is that norms are essen-
tially like rules; they are prescribed by individuals who believe they and others
ought to follow them, and who see fit to sanction those who do not.

                C. Intuitive Plausibility of the Rule Conception
The seven tenets of the rule conception taken as a whole present a plausible
and intuitively attractive account of norms. To see why this is so, one must
keep in mind the role that norms are thought to play in social theory. Generally
speaking, social theorists think norms play an important role in explaining how
societies are held together, how they maintain continuity over time, and which
beliefs they hold most dear. Norms can only plausibly be seen to play this role
if they can be undergirded by an account that explains their emergence and
maintenance. The rule view is an intuitively plausible model for explaining the
emergence and maintenance of norms.
    On the rule view, a norm receives its start in life in the following manner. Of
all the possible rules, some stand out to particular actors as worthy of allegiance
or acceptance. To accept a rule is to think that the behavior prescribed by the
                  Rule Conception Versus Pattern Conception                        23

rule should occur. In other words, one thinks the rule ought to be acted on,
either for rational or moral reasons. Typically, one will think the rule should be
acted on by other people in addition to oneself. Thus, it will be natural to try
to get others to conform. This is easy – one simply prescribes the rules to
others, that is, one utters the rule in their presence in such a manner that it has
rhetorical force. Some people will accept the rule because they will see that
it ought to govern their behavior. They may also prescribe it to others. Some
people will not initially think the rule should direct their behavior but may be
persuaded to conform by the presence of sanctions. They may also prescribe
the behavior to others, again due to the presence of sanctions. Through such
chains of prescriptions and sanctions, acceptance of the rule may spread. Thus,
a community may come to share a rule in the sense that most or all of the mem-
bers accept it internally and prescribe it externally. A shared rule of this sort is a
    All people conform to norms to some degree. Many norms are conformed
to by individuals beginning at a very early age. Thus, a theory of norms must
explain how the process of norm inculcation can be easy enough to be capable of
mass participation and early inculcation. The rule account provides a simple
and powerful explanation of how this may occur, as even the very young have
enough mastery over language to understand simple rules and to be responsive to
    Perhaps the most significant accomplishment of the rule conception is its
ability to explain in a simple and plausible manner the means by which values
receive expression in the behavior of social groups. The possession of values
by individuals and groups is in general not a well-understood phenomenon.
The preceding model demystifies this process. Members of a group accept
certain norms, which typically means that the rules are prescribed, taught to
newcomers, and acted on, with defections being sanctioned. Norms accepted
in this sense are the values of a group or community.
    Thus, the rule conception is a very plausible and intuitively attractive account
of norms. It is capable of providing answers to many of the key questions that
arise for any theory of norms. In spite of the plausibility of the rule conception,
a series of arguments for abandoning it will be presented next.

                 II. Arguments Against the Rule Conception
Five of the seven tenets of the rule conception are false and must be discarded.
The normativity tenet and the tenet that holds that norms are shared will not be
criticized, as each is an element of the correct view of a norm. The first three
objections each serve to undermine the first tenet, which states that norms are
linguistic entities capable of being called up as occurrent or spoken statements.
This tenet and the prescriptivity tenet are the heart of the rule view. But this
first tenet will receive the most attention as it is the most difficult to refute.
24                the pattern conception of norms

             A. Critique of the Occurrent Linguistic Entity Tenet
The term norm statement will be used to refer to the occurrent or spoken expres-
sion of a norm. On the rule theorist’s account, the norm statement is equivalent
to the norm. On my account, they differ. In the early state of the analysis, I will
use the term neutrally as between these competing conceptions.

1. the counting objection. There are two versions of the counting objec-
tion to the tenet that norms are linguistic entities. The first is that we sometimes
seem to have one norm statement present when intuitively it seems that there
are two norms. The second is that sometimes we have two norm statements
present when intuitively only one norm is present. In each of these cases, there
is behavior and a norm statement, and we are intuitively inclined to say that the
behavior is the norm.
    Consider, for example, the norm, Turn the other cheek. It might be the case
that two separate patterns of behavior regarding the proper interpretation of this
biblical injunction exist in two separate communities. In the first community,
turning the other cheek is taken fairly literally to mean that if someone strikes
you, you should do nothing to prevent them from striking you again. In the
second community, the expression is taken to mean that if someone strikes you,
you do not return the aggression, but neither do you allow yourself to remain
open to further aggression.
    Imagine that two distinct patterns of behavior develop in line with these two
interpretations of the injunction. On the rule theorist’s account, since norms
are just the occurrent or spoken thoughts, there is only one norm instantiated
in these two communities. Yet it is more intuitively plausible to suppose that
each of these communities has its own distinct norm. Thus, norms cannot be
identified with norm statements.
    The example can also be run in the other direction. Suppose that distinct norm
statements are characteristically uttered in each of the two communities but that
the same pattern of behavior is found in each. For example, one community
might accept the norm statement, Turn the other cheek, while the other might
accept, Do not fight back. Despite the divergent verbiage, if the behavior is the
same in both communities, we will be inclined to say that the same norm is
found in both communities.
    The rule theorist has a ready response to the counting objection in either
version. She will point out that, though it is the short spoken phrase that os-
tensibly counts as the norm, in fact, this short statement is merely a convenient
handle for a longer phrase that is actually what is accepted by the members
of the group. A fitting term for the more complex item might be internal
representation. Though we might not have complete or easy access to such
internal representations, they underwrite our ability to obey norms and to de-
tect norm deviations. I was quibbling about the rule at the merely verbal level,
                  Rule Conception Versus Pattern Conception                      25

but the rule theorist is interested in rules qua internal representations, where
these may or may not be readily accessible to agents.21
    In the first example of two communities and two patterns of behavior but one
norm statement, the rule theorist will contend that if the statements are more
fully specified for each of the two groups, they will not be identical. Thus, the
rule theorist has an explanation for why we are intuitively inclined to think that
these communities have diverse norms regarding the general notion of turning
the other cheek. The reason is that the groups have diverse rules, though this only
becomes apparent when the rules are more fully spelled out. Consequently, the
rule theorist will fail to be persuaded by the counting objection. She will claim
that it is an exaggeration of her view to hold that she is committed to thinking
that norms that are accepted by agents are fully captured by the content of the
words they utter.
    This defense fails, however. It is false to say that the rule theorist’s view is
exaggerated. Rather, the analysis takes rule theorists at their word, as captured
in the explicit definitions of norms examined earlier in the chapter. It is simply a
fact that rule theorists identify the norm with the linguistic or verbal statement.
    In addition to explicit definitions, the linguistic conception is also evident in
Tenet Six, the rule theorist’s account of how norms are shared. As earlier dis-
cussion indicated, the rule theorists’ account of norm transmission relies mainly
on a linguistic model involving the teaching of rules by means of speech. This
model is not apt for internal representations, however, for it is impossible that
complex internal representations could be readily taught by means of speech. In
addition, Tenet Seven, which states that norms are easily detected, seems incon-
sistent with norms as internal representations, for once again, it is far from clear
how one would go about detecting another person’s internal representations.
    Rule theorists sometimes make remarks that appear to be at odds with the
rule view of norms and more compatible with the view I will offer. This indicates
that there is a degree of inconsistency between their actual use of the term and
their explicit attempts to characterize it. If we assume for a moment that I am
right and the rule conception is wrong, then it should be no surprise that many of
the insights that the rule theorists have about norms will be in tension with their
explicit characterizations of norms. Drawing a parallel will clarify this point.
    In Naming and Necessity, Saul Kripke famously seeks to replace the domi-
nant description theory of reference with the causal theory.22 As he observes,
if he is right that the description theory is wrong and the causal theory is right,
it should be no surprise that many insights of description theorists fit nicely
into the causal theory framework. But this does not mean that the description
theorists are right in the manner in which they think reference works. Rather, it
is hard for a false theory to be a seamless web; the truth will show through. This
attacks the rule theorist’s explicit account of norms, and what they think norms
are when they actually try to say what norms are. It should be obvious that it is
desirable that this should dovetail with what they in practice take norms to be.
26                the pattern conception of norms

   The rule theorist’s response involves a shift away from the claim of Tenet
One, that a norm is an occurrent or spoken linguistic expression. This is accept-
able as a reasonable retreat for the moment, as long as it is kept in mind that the
further the rule theorist moves away from the view that the norm is the spoken
rule, the harder it will be to maintain Tenets Six and Seven. The next objection
creates similar tensions between various tenets of the rule theorist’s position.

2. the complexity objection. Some norms are so complex that it is
completely implausible to suppose that the content of the norm is captured by a
linguistic rule capable of occurrent retrieval. For example, there are pervasive
norms in this and other cultures regarding sexuality among extended family
members. These sets of practices are jointly referred to as the incest taboo in
the sociological literature. The taboo applies to much more than the simple
prohibition of overt sexual relations among family members. In this culture,
for example, aspects of the taboo regulate dating among cousins, what types
of intimacy are permissible among siblings, whether flirtation may take place
among extended family members, and myriad other subtle yet potent prohibi-
tions and permissions. Casual empirical observation suggests that these more
subtle aspects of the norm are rarely discussed. It is an objection to the rule
view that a norm such as this is so complex that it is implausible to suppose
that agents are capable of calling it up as occurrent thought, or learning of it
through the speech process.
   Consider another example. It is the norm in job talks in many academic
disciplines that the speaker, if male, is to wear a coat and tie. With such a norm,
we again see that the view on which norms are the spoken rule is not adequate.
The rule theorist would say that the rule here is something like: Men should
wear a coat and tie for academic job talks. But it is false that this is precisely
the norm. It is rather that this verbal characterization approximates the norm, as
surely there is more involved. For example, the agent could not wear a Hawaiian
shirt or sneakers with the suit and tie, nor could he wear an inappropriate tie.
All this will be understood by an agent of reasonable intelligence who has
grown up in this culture, yet this thicker content is not captured in the norm
   The rule theorist will offer a reply similar to the one offered to rebut the
counting objection. With the coat and tie example, for instance, we saw that
the norm is more complex than just the rule offered in conversation. The rule
theorist may grant this but observe that her theory can provide an explanation.
What matters, the rule theorist will contend, is that the rule is known to the
agent, not that it is fully capturable in an occurrent passage. It is only natural
that the rule is indexed or coded for convenience in terms of some shortened
version such as, Wear a coat and tie, but it is just as sure that the agent has the
more complex rule internally represented as she clearly knows not to wear a
Hawaiian shirt. Once again, the rule theorist must retreat from the claim that
                  Rule Conception Versus Pattern Conception                       27

the norm is the spoken or occurrent phrase in order to avoid an objection. But
as observed earlier, this move has its costs in terms of creating a tension with
Tenets Six and Seven.
   Summing up, then, the counting and complexity objections argue effectively
against the supposition that a norm is to be identified with occurrent or spoken
thought. It may still be true, however, that the norm is some type of complex,
linguistic expression such as an internal representation. Thus, norms may still
be conceived of as linguistic in a broad sense, to reside in the head of the
agent, as it were. The following objection will provide reason to doubt this

3. the hypocrisy objection. Suppose that some particular norm state-
ment is recurrently uttered in a community and the members of the community
claim that they accept this as a rule that ought to govern their behavior. Yet, there
is no corresponding pattern of behavior to go along with the rule. The example
of turning the other cheek is again appropriate. Suppose that people think they
ought to turn the other cheek and teach their children to turn the other cheek.
In spite of this, it might be the case that there is no extant pattern of behavior
to which the various members of the community conform that correlates with
the norm statement. They talk about turning the other cheek, but this simply is
not captured in any sort of regularity of behavior.
    In such a case, there cannot exist some second rule, either a simple one or
a complex internal representation, that the rule theorist may say is really the
norm. Rather she must say that the norm is the norm statement, Turn the other
cheek. But this is just wrong. There is no norm in this community. The mere
fact that the members of the community are in the habit of making a certain
type of utterance does not mean that there is a norm. The norm simply cannot
be equated with a norm statement.
    Consider where the discussion up to this point has led. In response to the
counting and complexity objections, the rule theorist was forced to retreat from
Tenet One in favor of a view on which norms are internal representations. This
is a more plausible view in that it allows for norms to have a more complex con-
tent, which is necessary if they are to overcome the objections. The hypocrisy
objection demonstrated, however, that the retreat to the view of norms as com-
plex internal representations is not always open to the rule theorist. The rule
theorist is forced to accept that the norm is the rule accepted by the community
even when there is no correlative behavior whatsoever. Intuitively, we are not
willing to count this as a norm. Thus, Tenet One must be rejected.
    Though the rule theorist is wrong to identify the norm with the norm state-
ment, this is an understandable mistake. For many of the important norms that
govern social behavior, it will be the case that a norm statement exists and is
commonly mentioned. Thus, it is understandable that this norm statement can
be mistaken for the norm itself.
28                the pattern conception of norms

                     B. Critique of the Prescriptivity Tenet
We have seen that the rule theorist may retreat to the view of norms as internal
representations. This is one reason norms should not be thought of as rulelike, for
intuitively, rules are short, linguistic items capable of being called up occurrently
and spoken, while internal representations are not. Nevertheless, one might think
it appropriate to talk of norms as rules, since these internal representations may
be prescriptive, and prescriptivity is a feature of rules. But as the following
paragraph will argue, prescriptivity is not necessary for norms. Hence, there
will no longer be any reason to equate norms with rules.
    The reason prescriptivity is not essential to a norm is quite simple; norms
may exist though no one prescribes them. Norms may go unprescribed or un-
derprescribed for a variety of reasons. For example, people may not want to
bother with prescribing a norm, or they may not be able to, or it may not be in
their interest. Prescriptions are not necessary to convey the content of norms
as agents may receive this information in other ways. For example, people are
often able to detect what would count as conformity to a norm through simple
observation of the behavior of others.
    On the conception of a norm developed in the next section, what matters
for a norm is that there is a rationally governed pattern of behavior that is not
coincidental, that is, a regularity that is caused by the actions of various agents
seeking to conform to the norm. Such a regularity may be maintained though
no one prescribes the conforming acts. What ultimately matters is that acts of
conformity occur, not that people entertain particular linguistic items.

                       C. Critique of the Sanctions Tenet
Contrary to the received view, it turns out that sanctions are not necessary for
norms. Sanctions are only necessary if people would never have the desire to
conform to norms but for the desire to avoid sanctions. Some types of norms
may be maintained due to other motives, however. For example, consider many
customs of physicians. Conformity to accepted medical practices is an impor-
tant part of a typical physician’s mode of operating, as it would be impossible
for each doctor to independently research each medically important procedure
she needs to use.23 These norms do not have a structure such that doctors only
conform under the pressure of other doctors who benefit from their confor-
mity and suffer from their defection. Instead, doctors conform as a means of
economizing on the costs of information. They freely choose to do so and
are glad to have the opportunity. Hence sanctions are not necessary for this
    The claim that linguistic structure, prescriptivity, and sanctions are not part
of the definition of a norm may seem a strange claim. How could other theo-
rists be so off the mark? It is not the case that other definitions of norms are
                  Rule Conception Versus Pattern Conception                     29

completely off the mark, however. Rather, they mistake contingent features
of norms for necessary features. Norms are often stated explicitly, prescribed,
and sanctioned. But this need not be the case. There is an important difference
between supplying a definition of a concept, which entails providing its neces-
sary features, and merely supplying its characteristic or normally concomitant

                 D. Critique of the Verbal Transmission Tenet
The sixth tenet of the rule view is that norm acceptance occurs through verbal
transmission of the norm statement. We have seen that this is an attractive
feature of the rule view, for since the norm equals the norm statement, the rule
view provides for a straightforward explanation of how norms may come to
be shared throughout a community, which is that people simply hear the norm
statement uttered and decide whether or not to accept it. When such acts of
acceptance become widespread, a shared norm will exist in the community.
But what can be made of Tenet Six given the rule theorist’s retreat to the view
of norms as internal representations? When one utters the norm statement, it is
no longer the case that the full content of the norm is thereby transmitted. How
then can another person come to accept and share the norm, that is, the full
content of the norm, when only part of it is transmitted verbally? This appears
to be an insurmountable problem for the rule conception.

                   E. Critique of the Ease of Detection Tenet
Tenet Seven states that it is unproblematic to detect which norms are accepted.
Although this is not a necessary feature of the rule theorist’s view, it is easy
to understand why rule theorists generally have not seen norm detection as a
problem. Their conception of norms is one of simple rules, and so it should
not be difficult to detect if a particular situation is a case in which a particular
rule comes into play. Perhaps the reason that rule theorists write as if norms are
detected unproblematically is because they focus on the vivid examples set by
important norms. They write as if all norms were like the Decalogue, and hence
easy to detect because the norm statements are regularly explicitly stated.
    In this regard, it is revealing to consider Cancian’s method for eliciting the
norms of the Mayan community she studied. As mentioned earlier, she simply
asked participants to state or write down the norms they accepted.25 Similarly,
if one wanted to detect the norms of this community without asking people to
participate, Cancian’s model suggests that all one would need to do is spend
time in the community and write down the norm statements one hears expressed
in the course of people’s daily interactions.
    The reality of the situation, however, is that norms are often very difficult to
detect. Consider, for example, the British upper class fondness for indirect uses
30                the pattern conception of norms

of language.26 The complexity of the linguistic norms involved is a barrier to
easy detection. Thus, only those brought up in the fold are able to appreciate
the subtleties fully. Others may wish to follow these norms but find it difficult
or impossible to detect them fully. This is an extreme case, but even in less
extreme circumstances, it will often be difficult to detect norms. This general
phenomenon is most easily seen when one travels to exotic places, where many
subtle norms will resist immediate comprehension. One might fail altogether
to detect the presence of some norms. Even when in their home culture, most
people are insensitive to some norms. Thus, Tenet Seven of the rule conception,
which holds that norms are easily detected, must be rejected.
    This section will conclude with a summary of the findings and some conclu-
sions. The first tenet of the rule view, that norms are linguistic entities capable
of occurrent or spoken expression, was shown to be untenable. The most plau-
sible response on the part of the rule theorist was to retreat to the view that
norms are instead more complex internal rules, so-called internal represen-
tations. This retreat was seen to create new problems, however, as the once
plausible transmission tenet became implausible, and the formerly problematic
ease-of-detection tenet became even more problematic. In addition, the rule
view was seen incorrectly to take prescriptions and sanctions to be necessary to
norms. In sum, then, the rule conception of norms is faulty in a number of impor-
tant respects. In the next section, I develop an alternative conception of norms,
one that focuses not on something internal to agents, such as rules, but rather
on something external, namely behavior, as the key to understanding norms.

                     III. Norms as Patterns of Behavior
The goal of developing a new definition of a norm is to avoid the problems
that face the dominant rule conception. The new view must also remain close
enough to our intuitive sense of a norm, however, if we are to sensibly extend
the term to include the preferred definition. The following conception fulfills
both of these criteria. First, the reformed definition of a norm will be stated,
then each of the important constituent elements will be examined.

                          A. The Definition of a Norm
     DEFINITION: A norm is a pattern of rationally governed behavior, instan-
      tiated in a group, maintained by acts of conformity.

1. behavior. A norm is a pattern of human behavior. The term behavior is
ambiguous in the following important manner. Brute physical movements such
as the motion of one’s left arm up and down count as behavior. But we also
commonly take more complex actions as constituting behavior. For example,
when a parole board decides to release a convict early because of good behavior,
                  Rule Conception Versus Pattern Conception                       31

what constitutes her good behavior cannot be understood or described at the
level of gross bodily movements. It is necessary to distinguish between brute
behavior and action, where action is understood to contain elements of intention
or deliberation. Whereas behavior in the sense of gross bodily movements was
of interest to the classical behaviorists, both kinds of behavior are grist for the
theory of norms.27
    A fundamental question arises as to the inclusion of behavior in the definition
of a norm. As the term norm is understood by the rule theorist, behavior is not
necessary for the existence of a norm. Why is it preferable to define a norm in
terms of behavior? One reason is for conceptual clarity. Generally, a distinction
is not drawn between rules and norms. The term rule is used for the notion of a
verbal or linguistic entity created by an individual or institution and transmitted
among individuals and institutions. The term norm is often used synonymously
with this conception of a rule. But the term norm is also used to refer to the actual
pattern of behavior that accords with the rule. It is worthwhile to keep clear on
this distinction between the rule and the behavior of the group that accords with
it. There is currently no term in the academic literature that is reserved solely
for this second item. The term norm best describes this second element.
    We will often wish to distinguish rules and norms. For example, we may want
to say that while the rule is Brush after every meal, the actual norm is that most
people brush their teeth twice a day. Ordinary usage allows for this ambiguity
between the rule and the behavior in the use of the term norm. Generally, we
are able to pick up on the difference in use due to contextual clues. But for
purposes of more rigorous theoretical work, the difference should be captured

2. patterns. A norm is a pattern of behavior. Few definitions explicitly
discuss the notion of a pattern. An exception is Scott’s definition of a norm as a
“pattern of sanctions,” which was mentioned earlier. Although Gibbard does not
fit the notion of patterns into his definition of a norm, nevertheless he realizes that
norms are somehow about patterns. In describing how the higher animals may
have norms, Gibbard writes: “As in the human case, these animal interactions
follow certain regular patterns, and the patterns seem, in a way, to have a
rationale. . . . Now a norm prescribes a pattern of behavior, and to internalize a
norm, I want to say, is to have a motivational tendency of a particular kind to act
on that pattern.”28 Thus, although Gibbard and I disagree about the definition
of a norm, we do agree in thinking that normative behavior is essentially about
patterns of behavior.29
    A pattern is comprised of multiple instantiations of an act type. An act
type is a particular kind of behavior which may be imitated by more than one
person. When a norm exists, members of a group will exhibit behavior of the
act type. Thus, each individual shares a property in common, that of performing
conforming acts, each of which is a token of the given act type. This common
32                 the pattern conception of norms

behavior is not only distinct from other kinds of behavior but also different from
random behavior.
    There are homogeneous act types and heterogeneous act types. A homoge-
neous act type is one in which the bits of behavior that constitute it are similar
in the sense that the bits are members of a natural kind. For example, a group
of friends all meet up at one of their houses and all take off their shoes. Each
individual has the property of taking off her shoes. The act type is shoe removal
under such and such circumstances, a natural kind of sorts.
    A heterogeneous act type is one in which there is not one simple act type
but a set of act types that fit together to form a complex of group behavior.
For example, there is a type of behavior in our culture that could be called the
handshaking norm. There are different variants in different contexts. For exam-
ple, the norm is different in a professional as compared to a nonprofessional,
personal context. In a personal context, how one behaves typically depends
heavily on one’s gender (this is changing in some subcultures in response to
larger norms calling for unisex or androgynous behavior). Roughly, the norm
is that men are to shake firmly with other men, and are to wait for a woman
to offer her hand, and to shake at the same degree of firmness as the woman,
if and when her hand is offered. Women are to choose whether or not to offer
their hands to be shaken when interacting with men, and are not to offer their
hands to other women but to hug, kiss, or touch instead.
    The female and male manner of behaving together make up the handshaking
norm. It is only the fact that the different behavior types all count as proper
conforming behavior under the general description of handshaking norm that
unites them as a single act type. For simplicity, the remainder of this work
treats act types that make up norms as homogeneous, unless it matters in some
specific context to note otherwise.
    There is an ambiguity as to whether the norm is the set of bits of conforming
behavior of a specific act type, or alternatively, whether the norm is the instan-
tiated pattern. I contend that it is the latter. An argument that the norm is the
instantiated pattern and not the collection of bits of behavior is that all of the
particular bits of behavior could be replaced and the norm might still exist. For
example, a community of Amish might rigorously adhere to a norm practiced
by their first forebears in America. We would have no trouble saying that they
follow the same norm even though the particular bits of behavior that constitute
the norm have changed. What matters for norm identity appears to be that the
current behavior, the act type, is similar to its forebears, and that there is a causal
continuation of the norm over time. This argument shows that a norm is not to
be identified with a particular set of bits of behavior. The particular bits come
and go, yet the norm remains.
    One might suppose that if the norm is not to be identified with the particular
set of bits, then it must be an abstract, platonic object. But this is not the only
option. Consider the ship that retains its identity even though all its planks rot
                 Rule Conception Versus Pattern Conception                     33

away and are replaced over time. It is not an abstract, Platonic object. Likewise,
we need not suppose that norms are Platonic objects just because they are not to
be identified with the particular bits of behavior of which they are constituted
at a particular time.

3. normative governance. Norms are constituted by patterns of behavior
of a particular sort; the behavior must be rationally governed. This just means
that the conforming acts must be performed by agents who believe they ought
to behave in such a manner. The ought may be the ought of rationality, in the
sense of narrow self-interest, or the ought of morality. Norms are not merely
patterns of behavior, then, but patterns that people think ought to exist, or, at
any rate, that ought to be conformed to.
   What one feels one ought to do will depend on one’s values or motives,
whether these be completely egoistic, completely altruistic, or some mix of the
two. Norms might be maintained by a group who possess a variety of values
and motives, some people conforming for mainly egoistic reasons and others
for mainly moral reasons. Defining norms so as to include normativity does not
depend on the truth of any particular assumption about the nature of human
motivation. If people are at bottom egoists, then we should expect to see norms
that reflect this, and if people are at bottom at least partially non-egoistic, we
should expect norms that reflect this. Chapter Four examines in greater detail
the role of predominant egoism in the emergence of new norms.

4. instantiation. A norm is not a norm if it is not in place. Norms thus differ
in an important way from rules, maxims, and laws, which can exist without being
captured in the actual, instantiated behavior of a group. For example, there could
be a law that proscribed homosexual behavior and yet many members of a group
could be practicing homosexuals. This latter fact would not call into question
the existence, per se, of the law or rule proscribing the action. Norms, on the
other hand, must be instantiated in the behavior of a group in order to exist. If
we go to strange new lands and inquire into the norms of the people, we are
inquiring into the actual behavior of the community, not the behavior to which
the group aspires or to which it pays lip service. Putative norms should not be
confused with norms.
    An individual or group may wish to instantiate a norm, and it may be that
the best way to do so is by promulgating a rule or law, but unless this individual
or group can get some substantial portion of the members of the community
to actually follow the rule, there will be no norm. Along these lines, recall
the hypocrisy objection discussed earlier where it was seen that hypocritical
utterances of a group regarding turning the other cheek are not sufficient to count
as a norm. If there is no behavior, there is no norm. The instantiation condition,
then, is an important point of disagreement between the rule conception and
the pattern conception.
34                the pattern conception of norms

5. groups. The next term in the reformed definition of a norm is that of a
group. A norm is a pattern of normatively governed behavior instantiated in
a group. Exactly what percentage of the group need act in accordance with
the norm for it to be a norm will vary with the type of norm and with the
group. The group may not, however, consist of one person, that is, the present
account does not allow for the existence of personal norms. This appears to
agree with ordinary language. For it does not seem correct to talk in terms of
personal norms. These are habits or routines, but not norms. Norms exist across
persons, not across different time slices of the same person. Whereas one might
say, Normally, I swim on alternate afternoons, one would not say, The norm
is that I swim on alternate afternoons.30 Thus, we see that the pattern must be
instantiated across different persons, not solely different time slices of the same
    The norm conformers must be active over the same range of time. For ex-
ample, it does not seem to be possible for the popes, or the U.S. presidents, or
the chief justices of the Supreme Court to have had norms with other members
of their respective job types.31
    Summarizing the last two points, the formation of norms requires more
than one individual. Furthermore, these individuals must create and maintain
the norm over the same range of time. The implication would seem to be that
interaction is necessary for the existence of a norm. It appears, however, that this
interaction need not be face to face. For example, an office worker and an after-
hours janitor may coordinate over time on some norms, such as those dealing
with where recycling should be left, even though they would not recognize one
another were they to meet in the elevator. What seems to matter, then, is the
structuring of one’s own behavior to accord with the behavior of another, or a
number of others, who are doing the same, over the same range of time.

6. conformity. We have seen that a norm is a pattern of rationally governed
behavior instantiated in a group. But it cannot be rationally governed behavior of
just any sort. It must be conforming behavior. Conforming behavior is individual
behavior that instantiates a specific act type, and for which part of the best
explanation of the individual act is the existence of the instantiated act type
in the community.32 This is a causal condition: the instantiated norm must be
at least a partial cause of the particular bit of behavior. To adopt a piece of
philosophical jargon, we might say that the agent must track the instantiated
norm.33 The nature of this causal condition will here be left in a fairly imprecise
state. Thus, I will not attempt to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for
a conforming act. It will be worthwhile, however, to look at a few examples to
get a better sense of the different ways the causal condition may be met.
   A straightforward and pervasive example of conforming behavior is tipping.
Norms regarding tipping are complex and vary widely. When people travel to
places in which they are unsure of the norm, the common thing to do is ascertain
                  Rule Conception Versus Pattern Conception                     35

the norm through observation and then abide or at least gauge one’s behavior by
it. In this manner, a partial causal determinant of the person’s action of tipping
or not tipping is the behavior of others in similar circumstances. This satisfies
the causal condition and thus counts as a conforming act. Another example in
which one tries explicitly to do what others are doing is when giving presents.
For example, if one takes a job in which there is a holiday present exchange
where one’s partner is determined by drawing names, one will want to give a
gift in the same price range as others give.
    Some regularities that may count as norms as far as our ordinary language
intuitions go will not satisfy the causal condition. A simple example is that
it is a norm that people eat everyday. Yet eating, as such, is not a regularity
of behavior maintained by conformity; that is, people do not eat in order to
conform to the behavior of others.34 Thus, the proper causal connection is not
present in order for this to count as an example of conformity.
    Notice that conformity is not necessarily a conscious or intentional process.
One may track the behavior of others without being conscious that one is
doing so. For example, the postures people assume when walking often vary
across groups and cultures. It seems likely that part of the explanation for these
regularities has to do with people conforming their behavior to that of others,
though without realizing that they are. In other cases, the conformity involves
fairly little occurrent processing because the behavior is part of the agent’s
routine. Initially, perhaps, the choice to conform to the behavior of others was
more deliberate, but such conscious effort may no longer be necessary.
    It is difficult to determine precisely what type of causal connection is ad-
equate for conformity. With some norms, the connection is very direct. For
example, in the case of tipping, one explicitly looks at what others are doing in
order to replicate it. In other cases, the causal connection is circuitous. As will
be discussed in Chapter Two, some norms are only conformed to because of
the presence of sanctions. In these cases, the behavior of others causes the sanc-
tions to work so as to increase the likelihood of producing the same type of
behavior. For example, the sanction against driving on the left is due to the fact
that others drive on the right. Thus, the behavior type explains the sanction,
which in turn is an element in the cause of more behavior of the same type.
    In other cases, the causal connection will be yet more indirect. The fact that
one lives in a culture in which coffee, instead of tea, is the norm will have a
causal effect on the chances of one’s drinking coffee as compared to tea. But
the causal influence does not seem straightforward; that is, one does not choose
to drink coffee after considering the behavior of others in the way one does in
deciding whether to tip. Although it accords with ordinary language to say that
coffee drinking is the norm in America, it is unclear whether this connection
is too indirect to count as conformity.35 For now, I will rest content with the
general notion that conformity depends on one’s behavior being partially caused
by the like norm-conforming behavior of others. In the remaining chapters of
36                the pattern conception of norms

Part One, we will see that conformity, even as understood at this fairly general
level, may pose serious problems for the theory of norms.
   There is an instructive parallel example from the philosophy of language. The
causal theory of reference pioneered by Saul Kripke and Hilary Putnam holds
that, as Putnam quips, “meanings ain’t in the head.”36 By this it is meant that
reference from terms in the language to objects in the world is determined not by
the set of descriptions – the intentional content – in the heads of particular agents,
but rather by causal chains leading back from speakers to objects. Analogously,
just as meanings are not in the head, neither, I argue, are norms. Agents may
have heterogeneous internal representations in the head, yet all may be taking
part in the same norm. What matters instead is that there be the right sort of
causal connection between oneself and the norm in order for one’s behavior to
count as following this norm.

            B. The Intuitive Plausibility of the Pattern Conception
The previous section explicated the various elements that, as a group, make up
the reformed definition of a norm. For brevity, we may say that on this view,
norms are patterns of behavior. This is in contrast to the received view on which
norms are rules. Earlier we saw that despite the attractiveness of the rule view, it
has a host of problems that, taken as a whole, force us to reject it. What remains
is to give some sense as to how the various pieces of the pattern conception fit
together to form a convincing whole.
    Recall the previous discussion of the role of norms in social theory. Norms
are thought to play an important role in explaining how societies are held
together, and how they maintain continuity over time. It was observed that
norms can only play this role if norms themselves can be undergirded by an
account that explains their emergence and maintenance. The pattern conception
provides an attractive and plausible picture of norms capable of fulfilling these
    Norms emerge in groups as a result of people conforming to the behavior
of others. Thus, the start of a norm occurs when one person acts in a particular
manner in a particular situation because she thinks she ought to. Others may then
conform to this behavior for a number of reasons. The person who performed the
initial action may think that others ought to behave as she behaves in situations
of this sort. Thus, she may prescribe the behavior to them by uttering the norm
statement in a prescriptive manner. Alternately, she may communicate that
conformity is desired in other ways, such as by gesturing. In addition, she may
threaten to sanction them for not behaving as she wishes. This will cause some
to conform to her wishes and act as she acts. But some others will not need
to have the behavior prescribed to them. They will observe the regularity of
behavior and decide on their own that they ought to conform. They may do so
for either rational or moral reasons. By processes such as these, a rationally
                  Rule Conception Versus Pattern Conception                      37

governed pattern of behavior may emerge in a community. It will satisfy the
conformity condition if at least a partial reason for the conformity of each is
the conformity of others.
    The attractiveness of the pattern conception is highlighted when contrasted
with the rule conception. The main puzzle in explaining the emergence and
maintenance of norms is the issue of how norms are spread through a commu-
nity. The problem with the received view is that it cannot explain how complex
norms come to be accepted. The transmission story works nicely but only for
simple norms that are adequately captured in brief norm statements. Yet as we
saw, to handle complex content the rule theorist must move to the view on
which norms are internal representations. This causes the transmission account
to become untenable, as such complex content cannot be transmitted verbally,
and so cannot explain the acceptance of these norms by others.
    The pattern view, on the other hand, can easily account for complex norms.
Because norms are patterns of behavior, complex norms are complex patterns
of behavior. But complex as they may become, they are nonetheless observable
and subject to imitation. Thus, their complexity does not preclude their spread
throughout the community. It will take a greater effort on the part of people to
detect the subtleties of complex norms. But this is a virtue of the account for
it accords with our intuitive understanding of norms, which holds that some
norms are harder to detect than others.

Summarizing the chapter, then, we have seen that the rule view of norms is
problematic for a number of reasons. To avoid the criticisms of Tenet One, that
norms are linguistic entities capable of occurrent retrieval, the rule theorist must
retrench to a view on which norms are internal representations. But this view
creates tensions with other tenets of the rule view. Thus, on either account,
norms as rules cannot adequately perform the work in social theory for which
they are needed. In contrast, we have seen that norms understood as patterns
of behavior can. This, then, is the preferable conception of norms. The next
chapter examines the rational structure of these norms.
                           Rational Norms

   Now all forms of community are like parts of the political community; for men
   journey together with a view to some particular advantage, and to provide some-
   thing they need for the purposes of life.1

While Chapter One explicated the essential requirements for a norm, it did not
explicitly appraise the rationality of the acts of conformity that make up the
norms. This chapter does. The next step, taken in subsequent chapters, will be
to make an appraisal of the morality of the acts of conformity making up moral
norms. These analyses will then be integrated to better understand the role of
norms and customs in particular real-world legal and policy debates.
    On some accounts, the term rational norm is an oxymoron as the element of
raw conformity necessary for norms to persist is thought to be in tension with
the reflection and calculation necessary for rational action. In fact, however,
many norms are best viewed as deep expressions of the heights to which our
rationality may attain. Other norms do indeed appear to be hopelessly irrational.
    The previous chapter argued that conformity is necessary for norms to exist.
Norms are maintained in groups and societies because people conform to the
behavior of other people. There is a difficulty with the notion of conformity,
however. As it is often understood, conformity amounts to blind following or
rote imitation of the behavior of others. Such a model of human behavior is
clearly in tension with the rational choice model.
    The Chicago sociologist James Coleman characterizes this tension in the
following manner: “Especially for theories based on rational choice, invoking
a norm to explain behavior constitutes an almost diametrically opposed ap-
proach. The rational choice theorist sees action as the result of choice made by
a purposive actor; the social-norm theorist sees behavior as the result of confor-
mity to norms.”2 If the type of behavior necessary for norms to be maintained
                                 Rational Norms                                 39

cannot be reconciled with the picture of human motivation inherent in ratio-
nal choice theory, norms can be of no further use to this dominant theoretical
approach.3 This, then, is a central problem for norms theory, reconciling con-
formity to norms with rational choice theory. This chapter will demonstrate
that conformity to each of the three different types of norms set out below may
indeed be rational.
   Whether conformity may be reconciled with rationality depends on the cir-
cumstances in which the possibility of conformity arises. Three types of circum-
stances produce the three different norm types. First, circumstances in which
free coordination is possible; second, those in which sanctions are necessary
to solve collective action problems; finally, those circumstances in which sav-
ings on the cost of information may be achieved by conformity. The first two
types of circumstance are strategic in the game-theoretic sense, while the third
is nonstrategic. Different circumstances and different motivations combine to
produce the different norm types. Strategic circumstances may produce coordi-
nation norms or sanction-driven norms while nonstrategic circumstances may
produce epistemic norms. Strategic norms are more complex and so will occupy
a greater portion of the following discussion.

                            I. Coordination Norms
The term coordination norm was coined by Edna Ullmann-Margalit.4 Though
I will borrow her term, I will argue that it is necessary to develop an alternative
account of coordination norms. Ullmann-Margalit’s account of a coordination
norm is itself a generalization of David Lewis’s account of convention.5 It
will be necessary to examine their treatments of the topics of coordination and
convention in some detail as the present analysis is best understood by seeing
how it builds on their contributions.
   Problems in achieving basic coordination will first be discussed. These are
coordination problems. Norms may serve as solutions to coordination problems.
These are coordination norms. The complexities of coordination norms will then
be explored.

            A. Basic Coordination and the Coordination Problem
The simplest sort of coordination situations are easily solved. In this regard,
consider the single equilibrium coordination game as represented in the payoff
matrix in Figure 2.1.6 For rational agents informed of the structure of the
payoffs, reaching the outcome 1, 1 will be trivial. Each player will only get
her preferred payoff of 1 if both she and the other player choose A. Each will
also expect the other to choose A, as each will expect the other to make the
rational choice. For each there is no reason to choose action B, as no matter
what the other does, one gets a payoff of 0. Whereas, with the choice of A,
40                the pattern conception of norms


                                                A                  B

                             A                 1, 1               0, 0

                             B                 0, 0               0, 0

                 Figure 2.1 Single Equilibrium Coordination Game


                                                A                   B

                              A                1, 1                0, 0

                              B                0, 0                1, 1

                      Figure 2.2 The Pure Coordination Game

one may get 0 or one may get 1, depending on what the other player does. So
unless one knows the likelihood of getting 1 is zero, which one will typically
not know, then the expected utility of choice A must be greater than zero, and so
greater than choice B, and so the preferred choice. Accordingly, there will be no
problem in the actors achieving the rationally preferred outcome of 1, 1, as each
will do the correct action on her own. It is for this reason that Lewis stipulates
that coordination problems must have a minimum of two proper coordination
equilibria or else the solution will be trivial, that is, there is no real problem of
achieving coordination in the first place.7
   Consider next a matrix representing the simplest type of coordination game,
the so-called pure coordination game (Figure 2.2).8 Pure coordination games
contain no element of conflict. But unlike the single equilibrium coordination
game, there are two coordination points for the players rather than one. In terms
of the matrix, the coincidence of interests among the players means that they
will have the same preference ranking for the list of possible outcomes. Row-
chooser and Column-chooser will do best if they can produce either of the pairs
with the payoff of 1, 1, that is, the northwest or southeast cells. Neither agent
prefers one of these pairs over the other and both prefer these outcomes to the
outcomes with the payoffs of 0, 0, the southwest and northeast cells. This is
                                 Rational Norms                                  41


                                               A                   B

                             A                2, 1                0, 0

                             B                0, 0                1, 2

                Figure 2.3 Simple Coordination and Conflict Game

a situation of interdependent decision as Row’s best choice depends on what
she expects Column to choose, and Column’s best choice depends on what she
expects Row to choose. In other words, if Row expects Column to choose A,
then her best choice is A, and if she expects Column to choose B, then her best
choice is B. Column’s choices are equally dependent on her expectations of
Row’s choices.
    Consider next the situation in Figure 2.3 where there is a mixture of coordina-
tion and conflict. Row-chooser’s most preferred outcome is 2, 1, the northwest
cell, as she gets 2, whereas Column-chooser’s most preferred outcome is 1, 2,
the southeast cell, as she gets 2. Thus, there is an element of conflict in this
game because Row and Column each has a first preference for different out-
comes. Yet, there is also an incentive to coordinate as each does better if settling
for coordination on the other’s preferred outcome than in the two situations in
which they fail to coordinate on either of the preferred outcomes, the northeast
and southwest cells, in which each receives 0.
    Before continuing, some terminology must be introduced. Equilibria are
combinations of choices in which each player has done as well as she can,
given the choices of the other players. No player will regret her choice given
the choices of the others, but she may be indifferent. A combination of choices
is a proper equilibrium if each player prefers her choice to other choices she
might have made, given the choices of the others. A coordination equilibrium is
a combination of choices such that no one would have been better off had any one
player, either herself or someone else, acted otherwise. A proper coordination
equilibrium is a combination of actions such that no one would have been
as well off had any one player acted differently, either herself or someone
else.9 Figures 2.2 and 2.3 represent strategic situations that have two proper
coordination equilibria, namely, the outcomes 1, 1 and 1, 1 in Figure 2.2 and 2,
1 and 1, 2 in Figure 2.3.
    When there are two equilibria, coordination may not be straightforward.
Consider the matrix in Figure 2.2. Row and Column are indifferent as to which
of the equilibrium outcomes is produced. But how do they arrive at one or the
42                the pattern conception of norms

other? For each, the best choice is conditional on what she expects the other to
do. If Row and Column can communicate, it will be easier for them to play this
game to their mutual advantage; they may be able to agree on one of the two
equally preferred outcomes, and each will consequently do her part to bring
it about. But when communication is not possible, arriving at one of the two
mutually preferred outcomes will not be so easy. Row will want to do what she
expects Column to do, and Column will want to do what she expects Row to
do. But how will either be able to form a reliable expectation of what the other
will do? How can either act in such a manner as to guarantee coordination on
one or the other of the mutually preferred outcomes?
    Thomas Schelling argues that in coordination games, players may be able
to coordinate their choices if the game happens to present the players with an
outcome that stands apart from other outcomes for some reason, making it the
salient choice on which to coordinate.10 For example, consider the following
coordination problem.
    You and I must meet after work, but we are both unsure where the meeting
should take place as we failed to come to a prior agreement on a location.
Say, for example, that we had planned to meet at a restaurant near work, but
it was closed, and for some reason it is not possible or convenient to meet in
front. We both desire to coordinate on the same location but have a problem
in separately arriving at the same choice to bring about the coordination. Each
wants to go where she expects the other to go. Each knows that the other’s choice
is dependent on her own. We seek to arrive at what Lewis calls “concordant
mutual expectations,” that is, we want our expectations to accord with one
another.11 I will go where I expect you to go, but I know you will go where you
expect me to go. You share this desire. If we are able to coordinate at all, it will
most likely be because we are both able to zero in on a prominent or salient
choice among the field of relevant possibilities.
    For example, if the short list of possibilities for meeting consists of three
establishments, the Oak, the Hawk and Dove, and Layla’s, and your name is
Laura and mine is Laurel, it might occur to each of us separately that Layla’s
is the salient choice. We might notice the slightly peculiar fact that each of our
first initials are the same as those of one of these establishments and further
that this establishment is named after a person while the others are not. These
facts may be enough to single out this location in each of our minds. Each must
expect that the other may also notice this particular fact, and each must expect
the other to expect herself to notice this fact. Under these conditions, each will
go to Layla’s more than half expecting to meet the other. In such a manner, the
coordination problem may be solved.
    With this preliminary understanding of coordination problems and the means
of their solution in mind, we are in a position to understand recurrent coordi-
nation problems and the means of their solution, namely, coordination norms
and conventions.
                                 Rational Norms                                 43

  B. Coordination Norms as Solutions to Recurrent Coordination Problems
Two people might repeatedly find themselves facing a need to coordinate in
similar circumstances. In such situations, a convention may emerge to solve
the recurrent problem.12 Just as in the case of the one-shot game considered
earlier, the problem may be solved with or without communication. When
communication is possible, the solution should be trivial in situations of pure
coordination for the same reason it was in single-shot games, that is, players will
simply agree ahead of time on which of the outcomes on which to coordinate in
future instances of the problem. In an iterated game, the agreement will create
expectations on the part of each that the other will act in the predetermined
manner when future cases arise, thus giving each a reason to act in this manner,
as she expects the other to. But how are recurrent coordination problems solved
when communication is not possible? Just as in the simple game, the answer
comes through the notion of salience.
    In an example such as the foregoing, we will in all likelihood be able to
coordinate on Layla’s as the solution to a repeated coordination problem and
thus establish a convention of meeting at Layla’s. The first case of coordination
came about due to the fortuitous fact that the situation presented a salient choice
that each of us could opt for with reasonable confidence that the other would
also make the same choice. On a second occasion, we might both recognize
that we face the same coordination problem as in the past; each of us now has
a double reason to choose Layla’s. First, for the same reason it was chosen the
first time, namely, because of our names, and now, for the additional reason that
it has added prominence since it has acquired precedence. Precedence is, for
Lewis, a type of salience. He refers to “coordination by precedence.”13 If yet
a third occasion for meeting arises, the precedent will be that much stronger.
With each new situation that calls for us to meet, the reason to choose Layla’s
becomes stronger, while no countervailing reason to choose the Oak or the
Hawk and Dove need surface.
    It might of course dawn on one of us to mention to the other that we should
plan to meet at Layla’s if we should have the need to meet on any future oc-
casions. Although this might nail down each other’s expectations with greater
certainty, it might not be necessary, and more importantly, it might not come
up in conversation. Without consciously reflecting on it, each might have ex-
pectations based on the first few coordinations, which are strong enough that
the issue never arises. If a third friend wishes to meet us after work, and if she
knows that we meet at Layla’s, this is where she will go. The same will hold
for a fourth person, and so on. Thus, in a simple case such as this, it is fairly
straightforward how a convention may emerge to solve a coordination problem.
Perhaps, by such a process, certain bars and restaurants become the in places
among members of a certain social circle.
    Emergence accounts of norms are sometimes distinguished from main-
tenance accounts. In the present case, however, the distinction is largely
44               the pattern conception of norms

unnecessary. Understanding how Layla’s emerges as the place to meet is just to
understand why it will tend to be maintained as the place to meet. For salience
and precedence create the expectations that allow it to emerge. Salience and
precedence will often continue and indeed strengthen, perhaps evolving into a
minor custom or tradition. For example, though perhaps all the original mem-
bers to the convention are dead, the Billy Goat in Chicago’s Loop remains a
drinking establishment where many of Chicago’s journalists gather. There was
never a point at which the emergence of this coordination solution ended and
its maintenance began.
    Before continuing, a terminological point must be made. Lewis talks about
conventions as solutions to recurrent coordination problems. As we will see
later, he thinks conventions become norms. Ullmann-Margalit accepts Lewis’s
account and introduces the term coordination norm for essentially the same
phenomena.14 Thus, it is appropriate to refer to the Lewis/Ullmann-Margalit
account of conventions or coordination norms. On this account, a coordination
norm is a solution to a recurrent coordination problem with two proper coordi-
nation equilibria.15 I will argue that coordination norms, properly understood,
are a broader category than the one explicated by Lewis and Ullmann-

                         C. The Coordination Benefit
Lewis and Ullmann-Margalit contend that conventions or coordination norms
serve as solutions to recurrent coordination problems.16 On my account, a coor-
dination problem is simply a strategic structure in which a coordination benefit
may be produced. To count as a solution to a coordination problem, however,
the occurrences of the numerous coordination benefits making up the norm
cannot accrue by accident. Rather, a causal condition must be met such that the
potential for benefit explains the conformity. In cases in which a coordination
problem is recurrent, it may be solved by a coordination norm.
   The coordination benefit is actually the important case of a more general phe-
nomenon, the coordination effect. The coordination effect is a term I introduce
for the change in utility experienced by one or more actors due to other actions
that are of the same type as the action under consideration. The coordination
effect may be positive or negative. Cases of the former will be called coor-
dination benefits, and cases of the latter, coordination losses. Rational people
seek coordination benefits and seek to avoid coordination losses. Coordination
benefits are, however, the more important concern for our purposes, as it is
their pursuit that may prompt people to conform to norms freely and of their
own accord. The coordination benefit, at its simplest, may be represented in the
game matrix in Figure 2.4.
   In this situation, Row receives a coordination benefit if Row and Column
coordinate on the choice of A. It must be the case that there is coordination on
                                 Rational Norms                                  45


                                                A                  B

                             A                 1, 0               0, 0

                             B                 0, 0               0, 0

                        Figure 2.4 The Coordination Benefit

a certain type of behavior by both parties for the coordination benefit to result.
It is not enough, for example, that Row benefit from some action of Column’s
that Row did not help produce. Nor is it enough that Row produce the benefit by
acting in a certain manner on her own. It must be the case that the benefit results
from both acting in the same manner. With coordination benefits, defection by
either party would cause Row to lose the benefit.
    This is not to say, however, that each party must intend to or want to coor-
dinate with the other. Consider the example of Dante and Beatrice described
in La Vita Nuova. Dante goes where he expects Beatrice to go because of the
deepened feelings of love he experiences in her presence. This situation might
have the structure of Figure 2.4 in which Dante is represented by Row and
Beatrice is represented by Column. Dante benefits from coordinating on the
same location as Beatrice, but she is neutral as to his presence.
    Thus, this example is one in which the coordination benefit accrues to only
one of the coordinators. In reality, however, many cases of coordination have a
structure such that both parties receive the coordination benefit. This is perhaps
the case we would ordinarily expect to see, since it is otherwise unclear why
Column would coordinate. In a case of mutual benefit, the payoffs to each
player would be 1, 1. Coordination that results in benefits to both parties is
part of the common notion of coordination, and, as we saw, an element of the
Lewis/Ullmann-Margalit model. Yet the case of unilateral benefit represented
in Figure 2.4 is not only possible but also of theoretical interest, as we will
later see.
    Though they are of less interest, coordination losses are captured in the game
matrix in Figure 2.5. In this situation, if both players perform action A, Row
loses out because her doing A is in coordination with Column’s doing A. An
example of such a case would be if you happen to coordinate on the same
establishment as the local bully who is out to get you. (Imagine that for some
reason the bully is no threat if you both end up at location B; say it is the bar of
your good friend, who happens to be a bigger bully.)
46               the pattern conception of norms


                                              A                  B

                            A                0, 1              1, 1

                            B                1, 1              1, 1

                        Figure 2.5 The Coordination Loss


                                              A                 B

                            A                0, 2              1, 1

                            B                1, 1              1, 1

                    Figure 2.6 Coordination Benefit and Loss

   The two matrices in Figures 2.4 and 2.5 illustrate the simplest cases of the
coordination benefit and coordination loss. They may also occur together, as
modeled in the matrix in Figure 2.6. In this situation, Row loses from coordi-
nation and Column benefits. An example is where the bully has the preference
that he end up at the same place as you as long as it is location A. In this in-
stance of coordination, there are two coordination effects, one positive and one
   Some examples will demonstrate the importance of the coordination benefit.
A variety of examples will be offered to give a sense of how pervasive coordi-
nation benefits are. Subsequently, the role that the coordination benefit plays in
the maintenance of coordination norms will be discussed.
1. Suppose I wish to take my children on a camping trip where they will have
   the opportunity to meet and play with other children. My success will depend
   on the extent to which I am successful in choosing a campground where other
   parents bring their children.
2. Suppose that I am a member of an aristocratic family and travel in an elite
   social circle of similar families. Suppose further that I wish the same for my
                                   Rational Norms                                  47

     offspring. My success will to some extent depend on my ability to coordinate
     with other similarly situated parents on choice of schooling, socializing, and
     the like for our children.
3.   Suppose I wish to routinely drive through traffic lights that are yellow. The
     extent to which I am able to adopt this practice with relative impunity will
     depend on the extent to which I am successful in finding a community in
     which others also drive through yellow traffic lights, as the prevalence of
     this action will reduce the likelihood of my apprehension by the authorities,
     given the plausible assumption that widespread breaches breed indifference
     on the part of the law.
4.   Suppose I am deciding whether or not to become a vegetarian. The merits of
     this decision will depend on the number of vegetarians in the community. If
     there are few vegetarians, I will have difficulties finding appropriate foods
     in stores, ordering in restaurants, and finding a compatible mate. Thus, other
     things equal, I will want to coordinate with the eating habits of others in my
5.   Suppose I am planning to move from a city to a small town and that I am
     currently in the market for an automobile. There will be a positive coordina-
     tion effect if I can coordinate my choice of an automobile with that of other
     members of the community which I am entering. For example, suppose I buy
     a Volvo and no one else drives one. There will be no dealers to service the car,
     parts stores will not carry replacement parts, and mechanics will have less
     experience with the specific sorts of problems that may arise. Thus, other
     things equal, I will get more utility from buying a particular type of auto if
     others make the same choice.
6.   Suppose I am in the process of launching a political career, and anticipate
     the need to have a position on the issues of abortion and capital punishment
     although I am in fact indifferent. There will be a positive coordination effect
     such that it will be in my interest to choose the positions that have the greater
     number of advocates in my community.
    The preceding examples illustrate the coordination benefit in which the util-
ity I receive for performing a type of action depends on others also performing
the same action. Understanding the coordination benefit is instrumental to un-
derstanding how recurrent coordination problems may be solved.

                   D. Solving Recurrent Coordination Problems
A coordination problem is a game in which one or more individuals can achieve
a coordination benefit. This is a wider definition of a coordination problem than
that given by Lewis. As already mentioned, a coordination problem for Lewis
exists only when there are at least two proper coordination equilibria. Because
there are two or more equilibria to choose from, agents may have a problem in
48                 the pattern conception of norms

table 2.1. Four Basic Coordination Norm Types

Rational Type             Description                             Example
(1) Non-equilibrium       Some agent would have gained had        Fashion Game
                            she alone acted otherwise.
(2) Equilibrium           No agent would have gained had she      Lawyer’s Summer
                            alone acted otherwise.                  Vacation Game
(3) Coordination          No agent would have gained had          Suit-wearing
    equilibrium             any agent alone acted otherwise,        Game
                            either herself or someone else.
(4) Proper coordination   No one would have been as well off      Driving Game
    equilibrium             had any agent acted differently,
                            either herself, or someone else.

coordinating on one of them. On my use of the term, such situations count as
coordination problems. But other situations will also count that will not count
for Lewis, as coordination benefits may be achieved in a variety of situations
that are not proper coordination equilibria.17
    Table 2.1 represents the various relevant possibilities regarding types
of coordination norms. In each of the steps from (1) to (4), the requirements for
the norm type become more complex as additional requirements are added
on. It makes most sense to begin discussion with (4) as this structure is what
Lewis takes as required for a convention. In fact, Lewis requires not one but
two proper coordination equilibria for a coordination problem. Later, I will first
argue that Lewis is right that situations of two or more proper coordination
equilibria may indeed constitute coordination problems potentially solvable by
coordination norms. I will show, however, that even with two equilibria, they do
not necessarily need to be proper coordination equilibria or coordination equi-
libria. Despite these structural dissimilarities to a convention, these coordination
problems may nevertheless result in coordination norms when they recur.
    Consider first why a Lewisian convention would count as a coordination
norm. Specifically consider the convention of meeting at Layla’s. We can see
that this convention is a norm on my definition, as articulated in Chapter One. It
is clearly a pattern of rationally governed behavior instantiated in a group and
maintained by conformity. In this case, the conformers are motivated by their
rational desire to be with their confreres at Layla’s.
    The next issue is whether the pattern of behavior is maintained by rational acts
of conformity. Recall that coordination norms must satisfy a causal condition in
that the conformity must be caused by the existence of the coordination benefit.
There is clearly no conformity taking place on the first play of the game in which
the parties manage to meet at Layla’s. On the second play, it still seems a bit
forced to speak of the players conforming to their actions of the previous round.
But hereafter, it seems more and more natural to say on each new occasion that
the players conform to the emerging pattern of behavior of the group in order to
                                   Rational Norms                                49

                                     Child B

                                           Goes           Doesn’t Go

                         Goes              1, 1               0, 0

         Child A
                      Doesn’t Go           0, 0               0, 0

                        Figure 2.7 The Rock Quarry Game

secure the coordination benefit of meeting up with their friends. Clearly, then,
a convention in Lewis’s sense can pass the conformity requirement to qualify
as a coordination norm.18
   Next, consider a coordination problem with only one equilibrium, as in
Figure 2.1. An example of this would be a situation in which two children
separately choose to go to the one rock quarry in town to swim (Figure 2.7).
Each will benefit from going only if the other also goes because each of them is
interested in following the parental order each has received not to swim alone.
   The first point to note is that this structure is not an example of a coordination
problem on Lewis’s definition because there is only one proper coordination
equilibrium, the outcome 1, 1. It is a coordination problem, however, albeit
a rather simple one. In this situation, there is the potential for a coordination
benefit for both of the parties. If each child, as a rational actor aware of the
payoff matrix (if only implicitly), goes to the swimming hole expecting to find
the other there because they were able to form concordant mutual expectations,
then on my account, this counts as the solution of a coordination problem.
   As each is indifferent toward going to the swimming hole when not ex-
pecting to meet the other, they might happen to chance upon one another at
the swimming hole. This does not count as solving the coordination problem,
however, because the achievement of the coordination benefit is accidental. As
we see from the payoff structure, neither has a preference for not going to the
swimming hole if the other does not go.19 This might plausibly be the case if,
for example, the swimming hole is out of the way and thus requires extra effort
to reach, but at the same time there is some other compensating pleasure such
as the chance of spotting deer along the trail.
   It is worth noting, however, that solving a coordination problem and thus
producing a coordination benefit is not enough for a norm. Recall the case of
Dante and Beatrice, as represented in Figure 2.4. The situation is that he benefits
from coordination but she is neutral. In such a case, she has no motivation to
coordinate with Dante. But the pure cases of norms which are the topic of this
study are ones in which all the conformers have motivation to conform. Thus,
even if the game between Beatrice and Dante were iterated, it would not count
50                the pattern conception of norms


                                        New York          Los Angeles

                     New York                 1, 0            0, 0


                    Los Angeles               0, 0            0, 1

              Figure 2.8 The Being-Seen-with-the-Right-Person Game

as a norm. Satisfying the conditions for a norm is yet more difficult as even if
each actor has the motivation to conform, it may still not be enough for a norm.
Consider the matrix in Figure 2.8.
    It might be that two people each benefit from coordinating with the other, but
the coordination points are not the same. Suppose, for example, that an actor and
an actress each benefit from being seen with the other. For the actress, it only
matters if they are seen in Los Angeles, while for the actor, it only matters if they
are seen in New York. The situation presents each with a coordination problem.
Yet a norm of behavior may not emerge since each cannot simultaneously solve
the problem, as each prefers to coordinate in a different city. Thus, we see that
it is not enough that there be a coordination point for every player. Rather, a
norm will exist only when there is one coordination point for all players.
    Consider what would be the case if the children manage to establish a pattern
whereby they meet at the quarry on the way home from their separate schools
each afternoon. Suppose further that after a time other children begin showing
up also, each expecting to find others there. Such a situation would constitute
a pattern of rationally governed behavior maintained in a group by conformity.
The conformity is explicated in terms of coordinating with the like behavior of
the others, namely, going to the swimming hole after school in order to benefit
from having others with whom to swim. It is therefore appropriate to talk of
a coordination norm. This example drives a wedge between the notion of a
coordination norm and that of a convention in Lewis’s sense of this term, as this
coordination norm emerges in a situation with only one proper coordination
    The next two examples demonstrate that a coordination norm need not be
a proper coordination equilibrium. Recall that a coordination equilibrium is a
combination of the agents’ chosen actions such that no one agent wishes any
agent – either herself or someone else – to have acted differently, that is, no one
would have been better off had any one agent chosen a different action. A proper
coordination equilibrium is a coordination equilibrium in the strong sense, that
                                 Rational Norms                                 51

                                  Most Others

                                         Suit             No Suit

                       Suit              1, 1               0, 1

                     No Suit             0, 1               1, 1

                        Figure 2.9 The Suit-Wearing Game

is, a coordination equilibrium such that all the agents would have been worse off
had anyone alone acted differently. Thus, in a convention, the conformers to the
convention prefer that others conform also since a convention has two proper
coordination equilibria. In the next example, a coordination norm wherein the
conformers are indifferent as to the conformity of particular individuals other
than themselves will be presented. This is a coordination equilibrium, but not a
proper coordination equilibrium. In the example after this, the conformers prefer
that individuals other than themselves not conform. This is an equilibrium, but
not a coordination equilibrium.
    Both Lewis and Ullmann-Margalit cite modes of dress as conventions.20
Their analyses of conventions do not fit their examples, however, for typically
others are indifferent as to the conformity of particular individuals. Thus, the
situation does not have the structure of a proper coordination equilibrium be-
cause it is not the case that the conformers would have been worse off had some
particular person not conformed. Yet, conformity still may occur due to the
possibility of coordination benefits. As an example, consider the Suit-Wearing
Game (Figure 2.9).
    If most others wear a suit to job interviews, then I will benefit from doing so
as well (northwest cell). And if most others do not wear a suit to job interviews,
then I will benefit from not doing so (southeast cell). For if I do not do what
most others do, I will be conspicuous, and this could hurt my chances of being
hired. Thus, I benefit from coordinating with the behavior of others. But most
others who also wear suits to interviews are indifferent to my doing so, as it has
no effect on them, that is, they receive the same payoff whether I coordinate
with them or not.
    There is a puzzle here. Coordination problems are structures in which the
coordination benefit may be achieved. The coordination benefit is the benefit I
receive from coordinating with others. But if I benefit from coordinating with
others, then how can I be indifferent as to whether particular others cooperate?
And since each player is in a parallel situation, why are the others indifferent as
to my conformity to the suit norm? Perhaps Lewis and Ullmann-Margalit are
52                the pattern conception of norms

right that coordination problems have two proper coordination equibria. The
puzzle dissolves, however, with the realization that although the conformity of
the other player matters in two-party cases, the situation becomes more complex
for multiparty coordination situations.
    Consider the following distinction. There are two separate conditions under
which defection by others may hurt me. The first is the stronger of the two. It is
when defection by any one of the others hurts me. But there is also the weaker
case in which defection by most or all would hurt me, but not defection by
any one. The Suit-Wearing Game is an example in which the second condition
holds but not the first. It is not the case that defection by any particular agent
hurts me. In fact, the opposite is true; I will more easily get the job if I am
wearing a suit and a few others are not. But if most others defect from wearing
suits, then I will be hurt as I will stand out. The crucial point is that the fact
that I will be hurt by the defection of most does not imply that I will be hurt
by the defection of each. Thus, this is not a proper coordination equilibrium
because conformers do not prefer that each particular agent conform also. Yet
it is a situation in which I benefit from conformity to the norm. Because the
other players are in the same position, the norm may be maintained over time
by these acts of conformity.
    To really bring this point home, it is instructive to contrast the Suit-Wearing
Game with the favorite example of game theorists, the convention of driving
on one side of the road or the other. Their analysis of driving as a convention
that represents a proper coordination equilibrium seems correct. For it does
matter to each of the conformers that all the others also drive on the same side
of the road. If there is less than total conformity, everyone’s life is in danger.
But the same fact does not hold for wearing suits and other similar practices
for which people are indifferent as to whether conformity is universal. These
are thus examples of coordination equilibria that are not proper coordination
equilibria. Recall that in a proper coordination equilibrium, everyone does worse
if anyone acts differently, whereas in a coordination equilibrium, it is only that
no one does better if anyone acts differently. In the Suit-Wearing Game, others
are indifferent. It is not that the rest would have done worse by one person’s
defection, it is just that no one would have done better by such a defection.
    The suit-wearing norm would not count as a coordination norm according to
Lewis and Ullmann-Margalit as it lacks the requisite proper coordination equi-
libria. Intuitively, however, it is clear that we would count this as a coordination
norm because it is a regularity of behavior that is maintained by people rationally
seeking to coordinate their behavior with others. More specifically, my account
captures why this example should be considered a coordination norm, as the
conformity is explained by the possibility of achieving the coordination benefit.
    Next, consider an example in which conformers actually prefer that others
not conform. This is not a coordination equilibrium, but simply an equilibrium.
At many law firms, there is a divergence between the official policy regarding
                                 Rational Norms                                  53


                                      Two Weeks         Three Weeks

                   Two Weeks               3, 1             1, 4

                   Three Weeks             2, 2             4, 3

                    Figure 2.10 The Associates Vacation Game

vacation time for associates and the actual practices of associates. Consider the
example of what could be called the Associates Vacation Game in Figure 2.10.
    In this situation, I prefer to do what others are doing. If they all take two
weeks vacation, then I also want to take two weeks, so as not to stand out as
a slacker. If they take three weeks, I prefer this also, so as to enjoy the longer
vacation and so as not to be ostracized by my peers as obsequious. My co-
workers, on the other hand, prefer that I do whatever they are not doing. If they
take two weeks, they prefer I take three weeks so as to stand out as a slacker
and thereby make them look better. And if they all take three weeks, they prefer
I take two weeks so as to stand out as obsequious. Thus, my best choice of
action is dependent on that of the others. I will receive the coordination benefit
for taking two weeks if they take two weeks, or for taking three weeks if they
take three weeks. But the others lose out due to my coordination; they suffer a
coordination loss.
    Consider a scenario in which associates take two weeks. This situation is
in equilibrium because each person cannot do better, given what the others
are doing. Given that the others are taking two weeks, each prefers that she
also take two weeks. Thus the regularity will persist; the lawyers have reached
equilibrium. But this is not a coordination equilibrium because it is not the case
that no agent wishes any one agent – either herself or someone else – to have
alone acted differently. Rather, each agent wishes any other agent to alone act
differently from the rest.
    Yet such a game is a coordination norm on my account. It is a pattern of ratio-
nally governed behavior instantiated in a group and maintained by conformity.
The conformity is explained by the rational desire to achieve the coordination
benefit. Intuitively, it is clear that the lawyers’ conformity should count as a
norm as it would be quite natural to remark that the norm in this scenario is for
the associates is to take two weeks of vacation. Thus, it is a virtue of the present
account that it shows why it should be included as such.
    Though prescriptions and sanctions are characteristically present with
norms, it is obvious why they will not be present in situations such as the
54                the pattern conception of norms

Associates Vacation Game. Prescriptions and sanctions usually serve to enhance
the likelihood of conformity by changing the payoffs in favor of conformity.
But in this example, the associates do not wish to increase the others’ likelihood
of conformity since their own interests are thereby harmed. It is because of the
possibility of norms such as this that I argued in Chapter One that sanctions and
prescriptions should not be built into the definition of norms. A similar point
holds for the Suit-Wearing Game. Since others are indifferent to the defection
of particular individuals, they will have no motive to prescribe conformity or
sanction defection.21
    We have seen that coordination norms may exist when there is not a proper
coordination equilibrium, or even a coordination equilibrium. The next coordi-
nation norm to be considered is not in equilibrium at all. A game is in equilibrium
when all players are satisfied with their choice, given the choices of others. No
one prefers that she had acted otherwise, given the actions of others. If a norm is
in equilibrium, the fact that new members join the group will not affect the con-
forming behavior of the current members. For example, if the norm currently
has ten members, and if on the next round, five new members conform along
with the original ten, if the norm is in equilibrium, then all fifteen conformers
will be satisfied with their conformity, given the conformity of the others, and
thus all will conform on the third round.
    For example, the driving norm is in equilibrium. The fact that each year a
new crop of teens become legal drivers and drive on the right has no tendency
to affect the choice of current drivers to drive on the right. In the previous
example, though each of the two-week vacationers wishes that one of the others
had chosen three weeks, nonetheless, the choice of two weeks by the others
has no tendency to cause the two-week vacationers to defect from the norm of
choosing two weeks.
    But with some norms, as new members enter the group, some of the current
members no longer want to conform. This may lead to constant migration into
and out of the norm. As long as the change is not drastic, we are inclined to
say that the coordination norm continues to exist through changes of this sort,
rather than saying that the old norm ceases to exist. Norms of fashion seem to
have this character. A fashion might be a coordination norm in that it is a pattern
of normatively governed behavior, instantiated in a group and maintained by
conformity. Agents conform to achieve the coordination benefit, which is the
positive utility one derives from looking like certain others. But this additional
conformity may cause some of the previous conformers to wish to defect, that
is, they receive a coordination loss from the conformity of the followers.
    Imagine a fashion hub in the center of an urban area. The concentric circles
around it represent the outer city, the suburbs, small towns and finally the coun-
tryside. Imagine a new fashion norm which starts at the hub. As those in the
closest concentric band conform, those just outside the outer edge of this band
begin to conform. This causes those at the inner edge to defect as they do not
                                Rational Norms                                 55

                                    Trend Setters

                                      New Fashion        Newer Fashion

                     New Fashion           2, 0              1, 2
        Slaves to
                    Newer Fashion          0, 2              0, 1

                          Figure 2.11 The Fashion Game

want to be part of a fashion that has too many followers. In this manner, the
concentric band of conformity might move out from the center of the city to the
countryside. In such a case, it seems natural to say that the coordination norm
continues to exist during the transition from being a norm of the avant-garde
to becoming an outdated bumpkin norm of those who reside in the country.
Thus, we see that a norm may stay in existence although it is not in equilib-
rium. Call this norm the Fashion Game. It has the strategic structure shown in
Figure 2.11.
    Slaves to fashion are those just outside the current outer edge of the band
of conformity. The trend setters are those at the inner edge of the band of
conformity. Their current conformity is precarious; they will defect if any new
conformers join the fashion norm. The slaves to fashion wish to coordinate with
all the current conformers. So the fact that their conformity causes the trend
setters to defect will not be something they like, nor will it be enough to make
them defect or not conform in the first place.
    Summing up the preceding discussion, we have seen in the examples dis-
cussed that coordination norms may arise for three types of equilibria and also
for the non-equilibrium case. In contrast, for Lewis and Ullmann-Margalit, con-
ventions or coordination norms may arise only for one of these four categories,
proper coordination equilibria. In addition, they require that there be a mini-
mum of two of this type of equilibria, whereas we saw with the example of the
Rock Quarry that one equilibrium is enough.
    On the account developed previously, what is essential to a coordination norm
is that one conform with the norm because of the coordination benefit. The agent
benefits from coordination with the behavior of the others. The others need not
benefit, however. For the other players, it matters that some others are acting
as they are acting, but it need not matter that each additional person act in this
manner. The dictionary captures this ambiguity in the notion of coordination.
Coordination may occur when one coordinates one’s activities with ongoing
activities, or it may occur when two agents act together. The latter only is the
sense captured by Lewis in his notion of actors forming “mutually concordant
56                the pattern conception of norms

expectations” and then acting on them.22 Coordination may persist, however,
even when people are not mutually concordant. Games of coordination in the
sense of Lewis and Ullmann-Margalit are then a special case of the larger topic
of coordination in order to achieve the coordination benefit.

                         II. Sanction-Driven Norms
Sanction-driven norms (SD norms) are the second type of strategic norm. Just
as was the case with coordination norms, a variety of related structures all count
as sanction-driven norms. What the family of SD norms have in common is that
the acts of conformity making up the norm are performed to avoid sanctions
rather than out of natural inclination. This is in contrast to coordination norms
for which conformity – and so the norms themselves – could exist in a world
without the presence of sanctions.
    An SD norm of particular interest is the type of norm that may emerge as
the solution to what has been variously called the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma,
collective action problem or public goods problem. As the Prisoner’s Dilemma
is now well known across a variety of academic disciplines and to some extent
in the general population as well, this is a good place to begin.

                A. One-Shot and Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemmas
As will already be familiar to many, the Prisoner’s Dilemma derives its name
from the classic example of two prisoners and the dilemma each faces in individ-
ually deciding whether to cooperate with the other in withholding information
from the authorities. The story is customarily told in the following manner. Two
prisoners are charged with a crime. Though in fact both prisoners are guilty,
the authorities do not have enough evidence to convict each of the full offense.
There is enough evidence, however, to convict each of a lesser offense. Thus,
if the prisoners can manage to keep silent, each will receive a shorter sentence
than would be possible giving the severity of the offense, as the sentences will
be based on this less incriminating evidence. If either alone confesses, however,
thereby implicating the other, the prisoner who confesses will get the shortest
possible sentence or be released on probation while the other will get an even
stiffer sentence than if both were convicted of the full charge.
    In this example, there are four possible lengths of sentence each of the
prisoners might serve. Given that each prisoner may independently choose
between confessing and not confessing, there are four possible outcomes. The
ranking of the prisoners’ preferences is captured in Figure 2.12.
    In the language of informal game theory, refusal to confess counts as cooper-
ation (or “C”) while confession counts as defection (or “D”). Cooperation here
does not mean cooperation with the authorities, but rather cooperation with the
other prisoner in maintaining the mutually beneficial silence. Defection means
                                 Rational Norms                                   57

                                       Prisoner B

                                       Not Confess (C)       Confess (D)

                     Not Confess (C)         3, 3               1, 4

        Prisoner A
                       Confess (D)           4, 1               2, 2

                        Figure 2.12 The Prisoner’s Dilemma

defection from this silence. If A confesses while B does not (the southwest
cell), then A receives 4, her most preferred outcome (shortest possible sentence
or probation), and B receives 1, her least preferred outcome (the most severe
sentence). If B confesses while A does not (the northeast cell), B receives 4, her
most preferred outcome, and A receives 1, her least preferred outcome. If both
confess (the southeast cell), each receives 2, the second least preferred outcome
(the second most severe sentence) while if both refrain from confessing (the
northwest cell), each receives 3, the second most preferred outcome (the second
lightest sentence).
    The so-called Prisoner’s Dilemma arises due to the following features of
this situation. If rational, each prisoner will notice that no matter what the other
prisoner does, it is in her own interest to confess. For example, if B confesses,
and A also confesses, A receives 2, whereas if A does not, she receives 1, thus
preferring to confess. If B does not confess, and A confesses, A receives 4,
whereas if she does not, she receives 3, thus, again preferring to confess. The
same situation holds for B – whatever A does, it is better for B to confess. In the
language of informal game theory, confession in this situation is the dominant
strategy; each prefers it regardless of what the other person does.
    The result is that each of the prisoners, if rational, will confess. The problem
is that this will put them in the southeast cell, giving each the second worst
outcome, whereas if both had held back the information from the authorities,
each would have ended up in the northwest cell, giving each the second best
outcome. Thus, when each chooses the individually rational strategy, both end
up worse off than if they had been able to restrain themselves and choose
the action that would provide for the jointly preferred outcome. This situation
constitutes one of the so-called paradoxes of rationality, as behavior that is
individually rational or optimal turns out to be collectively suboptimal.23
    For single-shot Prisoner’s Dilemmas, it is generally agreed that no solution to
the problem is available. It is simply a cruel fact about the world that individually
optimal choices may lead to collectively suboptimal results. This cruel fact will
only be alarming if Prisoner’s Dilemma situations are pervasive. Unfortunately,
58                  the pattern conception of norms

they are.24 Not only do Prisoner’s Dilemma problems arise often, but, like
nightmares, they may recur. In the language of informal game theory, these are
called iterated Prisoner’s Dilemmas.

             B. Norms as Solutions to Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemmas
Fortunately, iterated Prisoner’s Dilemmas contain the makings of their own so-
lution. For although the Prisoner’s Dilemma captures the strategic structure of
the direct payoffs to agents in the types of situations under consideration, the
fact that the situations recur may change the strategic structure of the situation
as it exists over time, such that a cooperative strategy may become preferable
to each of the players. If one player defects in a Prisoner’s Dilemma situation
and consequently her partner receives the worst payoff, she may decide not
to cooperate with the first person in future play. This failure to achieve future
cooperation may be more costly in the long run than the immediate gain from
defection. All things considered, the best choice may be to cooperate. In addi-
tion, the disappointed person may harm the first person’s reputation by telling
others of her proclivity to defect. They too may then be reluctant to cooper-
ate with this person in situations with the structure of an iterated Prisoner’s
Dilemma. So, by defecting in iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma situations, a person
may gain in the short run but lose overall.25
    Consider an example, borrowed from David Hume, of stealing property from
other people. Hume writes:
It is only a general sense of common interest; which sense all the members of society
express to one another, and which induces them to regulate their conduct by certain
rules. I observe, that it will be for my interest to leave another in the possession of his
goods, provided he will act in the same manner with regard to me. He is sensible of a like
interest in the regulation of his conduct. When this common sense of interest is mutually
expressed, and is known to both, it produces a suitable resolution and behavior.26

If I steal from you and you do not steal from me, then I am better off and you are
worse off. If we each steal from one other, then you are not as bad off as when
I steal from you and you do not steal from me, and I am not as well off as when
I alone am a thief. On the other hand, if we both refrain from stealing, we are
both better off than when we both steal from one another, though neither is as
well off as when he alone partakes of thievery. This is analogous to the situation
in which we both refrain from confessing to the authorities. In the case of the
prisoners, facing the situation once as they do, it is hard to see how an egoist
could resist confessing. But this may not be the case with stealing. For, whereas
the prisoners will only be in this situation once, people are often in a position to
steal repeatedly from one another. Unlike one-shot situations, when agents are
in the same situation repeatedly, it will sometimes be rational to cooperate with
one another if doing so will allow each to achieve the jointly preferred outcome.
                                 Rational Norms                                  59

The reason is obvious. If we continue to steal from each other time after time,
each is a loser, whereas if we can both summon up restraint, each will benefit.
You will know that I will restrain from stealing your goods only if you restrain
from stealing mine, and vice versa. Thus, each may practice restraint in order
to induce restraint on the part of the other in the future.
    This mutual practice of restraint may become a norm. The normative gover-
nance in this case would consist of the rational desire of each to give the other
no reason to stop cooperating in future games and no reason to denigrate the
other’s reputation. The norm, then, represents a solution to the iterated
Prisoner’s Dilemma that the two people in Hume’s example faced with respect
to one another. A norm that serves as a solution to an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma
is appropriately called a Prisoner’s Dilemma norm, or PD norm for short.

                           C. Public Goods Problems
Norms may serve as solutions to public goods problems. Public goods have two
defining features: jointness of supply and impossibility of exclusion.27 When a
good is in joint supply, consumption of the good by one person does not lessen
the amount available to others. When a good has the property of impossibility
of exclusion, if it is available to be consumed by one, it is available to be
consumed by all. A common example of a public good is street lighting. One
person’s consumption of this good does not lessen the amount of light available
to others, such that if street lighting is available to one member of the community
it is available to all members.
    Contrast the consumption of a public good with the consumption of a pri-
vate good such as a can of soda. When one person consumes a soda from the
refrigerator, there is less soda available for others. In the language of public
goods, there is no jointness of supply. In addition, consumption of soda can be
restricted, as for example by putting a lock on the refrigerator. In other words,
exclusion is possible.
    Of these two defining features of public goods, the one most relevant for our
purposes is the second, impossibility of exclusion. The fact that it is impossible
or infeasible to exclude others from consuming public goods once they are
provided is the key to understanding the public goods problem. This feature
makes free riding on the efforts of others possible, since, if the public good
is provided by others, the rational actor may also reap the benefits without
contributing, as she cannot be excluded. It might be true that her contribution
will raise the probability that the good will be provided, or raise the level of
provision of the good somewhat. But in situations with the structure of a public
goods problem, these effects will not be pronounced enough to countervail the
incentive to defect. Thus, free riding will be rational. The difficult problem with
public goods provision is not that there might be some free riding at the margin,
but that all actors may be in the position in which it is rational not to contribute
60                the pattern conception of norms

to the production of the good. The result may be that no one will contribute,
even though, if all were to contribute, all would be better off.
    Political theorists have seen the provision of benefits from the state in terms
of the public goods problem. Hobbes argued that a strong state, a Leviathan,
is needed to provide the basic societal requirements of peace and security.28
A number of writers have observed that peace and security are public goods
because when they are provided for some, they are provided for all, and con-
sumption by one does not diminish the amount available to others.29 The typical
public goods discussed have the feature that the good is a physical object such as
a lighthouse. Lighthouses are in joint supply because one boater’s benefit from
a lighthouse does not diminish the ability of another boater to benefit. Second,
it is practically impossible to exclude particular boaters from benefiting from
the lighthouse, should they decide to do so, once it is in existence.
    Of more interest in the present context, however, are not physical objects
that may serve as public goods, but rather norms and customs that sometimes
have structures that qualify them as public goods. Recall from Chapter One that
a norm is not a rule but a pattern of rationally governed behavior instantiated in
a community that is maintained by conformity. As such, norms have associated
payoff structures, and these are sometimes fairly seen as public goods. The
benefits flowing from the practice are such that it is not practically possible
to exclude others, and the good, once produced, is in joint supply such that
one person’s benefit from the good does not diminish the ability of others to
    Consider a few examples. The practice whereby the members of a group do
not litter has the structure of a public goods problem. In this strategic situation,
one faces off against all the other participants in the practice. The social practice
whereby people refrain from littering is represented by the outcome in the
northwest cell of Figure 2.13 in which each person receives a payoff of 3.
It is apparent from the matrix why the maintenance of the practice may be
problematic, for each person would prefer if the outcomes represented by the
southwest cell instead existed.


                                      Not Littering        Littering

                  Not Littering             3, 3             1, 4

                  Littering                 4, 1             2, 2

                          Figure 2.13 The Littering Game
                                 Rational Norms                                   61

    Practices with structures whereby they embody a solution to a public goods
problem appear prevalent. The practice whereby people refrain from stealing
from one another can be seen in this light. The egoist prefers that others respect
property but that she have the ability to show selective disrespect. The egoist
wishes for others to show respect for two reasons. First, her own property
will be safe, and, second, if there is a general respect for property, she will
more easily be able to get away with her own transgressions (e.g., thieves may
sometimes have an easier time in small communities due to the presence of
fewer precautions).
    Consider a few more examples. The egoist wants others to conform to a
practice whereby passing motorists come to the aid of stranded motorists, for
such a practice ensures that she will get help where she needs it. However, she
has no desire to aid others. The egoist prefers that others refrain from driving
while intoxicated so that she will be safer on the road. But she may sometimes
prefer to be able to drive when intoxicated herself. The egoist prefers that
the population at large use condoms as this reduces the pool of people with
disease who might infect her. She may prefer, however, not to use them in some
    All these situations share the feature that the egoist wishes for some particular
regularity of behavior to exist in a community so that she can benefit from it,
but she wishes not to conform to the regularity herself, or only to conform
selectively. It might seem apparent that these regularities could not exist in
a world of egoists because all would have the same preference that others
maintain them but not they themselves. This would be disappointing for the
egoists involved, as each prefers that the regularity exist and that she adhere to
it over the state of affairs in which the norm does not exist. And yet by each
acting in her narrow self-interest, the latter results.

             D. PD Norms as Solutions to Public Goods Problems
Consider the last five examples of the public goods problem. If somehow the
proper norms were in place in these situations, then there would in fact be
no failure of collective action. For the norm is just the pattern of conforming
behavior. For example, if the norm is that no one violates another person’s
property, then in spite of the structure of the recurrent situation, in fact, the
public good is provided. The public good in this case is the state of affairs in
which everyone’s possessions are safe from theft. In the example of littering,
if there is a norm extant in the community whereby no one litters, then in spite
of the structure of the situation, the public good of an attractive environment is
provided. The public good is the attractive environment.
    What then is the relation between SD norms and public goods? In some cases,
the norm is the means to the public good. For example, in the case of littering, the
public good is an attractive environment. The pattern of non-littering behavior is
62                the pattern conception of norms

the means to the good. In other cases, the connection is more intimate. It seems
fair to claim that in the aiding strangers example, the public good is simply
the pattern of behavior. The public good is that one can expect to receive help
when stranded. When the regularity of behavior is such that people stop for
stranded motorists, the public good is therefore provided in virtue of others
stopping. Thus the regularity of behavior is the public good. We see then that
norms are a particular kind of public good. They are not objects like lighthouses
or bridges but rather patterns of behavior instantiated in groups. If groups or
communities can somehow manage to follow these patterns of behavior, they
will have managed to provide the relevant public goods.
    Public goods problems have an additional feature. The good cannot have the
property that it is in the interest of some one person or a few persons to supply
it. For example, there will not be a public goods problem in the case of the
lighthouse if one particularly powerful shipper finds it in her interest to provide
the good on her own. According to Olson, we can assume that the good will
be provided in such a case.30 The relevance of this for the present discussion is
that in cases in which a public good is provided by one or some small number
of individuals, this will not be an instance of a norm serving as a public good.
Norms are patterns of behavior instantiated in a group. If the good is provided
by one individual, thus making the group pattern of behavior unnecessary, the
problem is solved, but not by a norm. For example, a wealthy environmentalist
might find litter so repellent that she pays a crew to continually pick it up. The
public good of an attractive environment is available to all, but it is not provided
by a norm.
    Note that even the extreme measures of the wealthy environmentalist cannot
provide the good as well as a simple norm can. For the crew can only do
their job after the littering has occurred and thus after people have suffered its
unsightliness. If the norm against littering is extant, however, the litter will never
hit the ground. Consider condom use in this light. The public good of decreased
viral transmission is a function of the proportion of the group that conform
to the norm. It is hard to imagine a realistic manner in which a single person
could provide this good with anything close to the efficiency of a group whose
members conform to safe sex norms. In this example, practically speaking, an
individual cannot provide the good, only a norm can. The same holds for the
threat drunk driving poses for driver safety. The public good is a less risky
driving environment. Any manner by which a single person could ensure this
good to a group would seem less efficient than if the group simply conforms to
sober driving practices.

                         E. PD Norms Versus SD Norms
Ullmann-Margalit introduced the term PD norm to cover the types of examples I
call SD norms. My term is appropriate because all the examples share the feature
                                    Rational Norms                                63

that conformity is only forthcoming as a result of sanctions; hence, these norms
are driven by sanctions. Ullmann-Margalit might respond, however, that her
term is equally appropriate because all the cases she considers have an iterated
Prisoner’s Dilemma structure. I will now go on to establish that what is at issue
is actually a more general notion than the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
    What matters for an SD norm is that conformity is rational only when sanc-
tions are present. In other words, with SD norms, the agent’s most preferred
outcome, sanctions aside, is one in which she is not conforming. This makes
SD norms a broader category of norms than Prisoner’s Dilemma norms as this
notion is set out by Ullmann-Margalit because there are norms that exist only
as a result of sanctions but that do not have the structure of an iterated Prisoner’s
Dilemma. This then is the second type of norm for which Ullmann-Margalit’s
explication of the concept is not sufficiently broad. With coordination norms,
what mattered was whether a coordination benefit was available, not whether
the situation presented multiple coordination equilibria. With the sort of situa-
tion in which a sanction-driven norm may arise, the player conforms because
there is a strategic effect to conforming but it is negative, that is, one receives
a coordination loss for conforming. It is only the presence of a sanction that
makes it the case that, all things considered, the conformity results in a coor-
dination benefit. These features are true of norms with a variety of strategic
structures. What these structures share is that the first preference is not to con-
form. The rankings of the other preferences do not matter for present purposes.
This is most easily seen by looking at another well-known game in the rational
choice literature, the game of Chicken. The game of Chicken has the strategic
structure shown in Figure 2.14.
    Hume provides an example of two people who wish to drain a meadow.31 As
he describes it, the structure of this situation appears to be that of a Prisoner’s
Dilemma as each neighbor prefers to abandon the project (mutual defection)
rather than to do the work on her own (unilateral cooperation). In a similar
situation, however, the effects of leaving the meadow undrained might be so
disastrous that each neighbor would prefer to do it on her own rather than leaving


                                            Cooperate           Defect

                         Cooperate            3, 3                2, 4

                           Defect             4, 2                1, 1

                         Figure 2.14 The Game of Chicken
64                the pattern conception of norms

it undone.32 This situation would have the structure of a game of Chicken, as
is captured in Figure 2.14. Each prefers most that the other does the work,
prefers next that both do the work, prefers next that she alone do the work,
and finally, prefers least that the meadow is left undrained. Thus, unlike the
Prisoner’s Dilemma in which if one defects the other prefers to defect also, if
the first defects in Chicken, the second prefers to cooperate.
    It is plausible to suppose that in circumstances such as these, as in the
Prisoner’s Dilemma, one may be able to get the other to cooperate in mutual
or reciprocal provision of the good through threat of defection. Each prefers
that the other provide the good, which creates an incentive to somehow bind
oneself to not helping drain the meadow so that the other person is forced to do
it by herself if she wants it done at all. But each knows that it is dangerous to
simply not cooperate as the other may reason in a similar manner, which would
produce the worst outcome for each.
    In such circumstances, it may be rational for each to try to sanction the other
into cooperation. This might be accomplished by threatening not to cooperate
in other spheres of interaction if the other does not cooperate with regard to the
meadow. One’s threat may bring about the worst outcome, however, if it fails to
elicit cooperation on the part of the other. But this chance may be worth taking
if the long-run benefits of mutual rather than unilateral provision of the good
are large enough. If the meadow drainage problem is recurrent, a cooperative
practice may develop. Such a norm is maintained through sanctions and so is
fairly denominated an SD norm, yet it is not a PD norm.
    Chicken and the Prisoner’s Dilemma are alike in one important respect,
however. The cooperative practice achieved through sanctions is preferred to
the situation in which cooperation is not achieved at all. Thus, sanctions serve
a useful role in iterated Chicken just as they do in the case of the iterated
Prisoner’s Dilemma, for it is the possibility of sanctioning one another that
makes mutually beneficial cooperative practices possible. But not all sanction-
driven norms have this feature. Consider a strategic structure in which people
prefer mutual defection to mutual cooperation. Call it the game of Heroism.
The payoff matrix in Figure 2.15 is similar to that for the Prisoner’s Dilemma in
other respects except that mutual defection is preferred to mutual cooperation,
that is, the southeast cell provides a higher payoff to each of the players than
does the northwest cell.
    An example of the game of Heroism might be heroic behavior in a military
unit. Each prefers most that others abide by the norm of heroism but that she
defect. In such a situation, the war may be more easily won, and her life might
even be saved by one of the heroic acts. This is similar to the Prisoner’s Dilemma
in that one’s first preference is to free ride on a norm of cooperation. Unlike
the Prisoner’s Dilemma, however, the second preference of each is that no one
act heroically, rather than the situation in which all are heroic. This might be
a plausible preference for an egoist given the dangers of heroism. She would
                                 Rational Norms                                   65


                                             Heroism          No Heroism

                          Heroism              2, 2               1, 4

                        No Heroism             4, 1               3, 3

                         Figure 2.15 The Game of Heroism

rather that the war not go so well and take her chances in terms of not being saved
by others, rather than behaving as a hero herself. If this is the case, we should not
expect egoists sanctioning defectors to be a means of eliciting cooperation by all.
    Sanctions of a different sort, however, might be imposed to bring about
conformity. If, for example, the military high command creates sanctions to
alter the payoffs so that mutual cooperation is preferred to mutual defection,
regular practices centered around heroism might come about. In the game of
Chicken and the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the agents themselves provide sanctions
in order to bring about cooperation by others; in the game of Heroism, an outside
source provides the sanctions.
    In Chicken and PD, the sanctions allow the agents to reach a mutually pre-
ferred outcome that is otherwise unobtainable. Thus there is a sense in which
sanctions are desirable to these agents. In the best of all possible worlds, the
egoist has an endless supply of fresh cooperators to sucker. But if this world
cannot be found, it is better to live in a world of rational egoists with whom one
can reach cooperative solutions through sanctions than in a world where one is
not able to do so. The same does not hold for the game of Heroism, however.
Here, the sanctions cause the actors to settle on the outcome, which is mutually
inferior to the outcome they would otherwise settle on. Other things equal, ego-
ists prefer that sanctions of this sort not exist (at least where they are the ones
being sanctioned). We might say that sanctions arising in the game of Chicken
and the Prisoner’s Dilemma are welcome sanctions, while those arising in the
game of Heroism are unwelcome sanctions.
    In the preceding examples, the welcome sanctions arise from within the
norm group, whereas the unwelcome sanctions arise from outside the group.
But this is purely a contingent matter. As groups become larger, it is increasingly
difficult for sanctioning techniques like threats to reputation to work. Thus, the
group may develop institutional techniques for sanctioning, such as a legal
system. Once such sanctions are in place, it is as if the sanctions come from
outside the group of conformers. Yet, this does not mean that the sanctions are
unwelcome from the point of view of the egoist. For even though the sanctions
66                the pattern conception of norms

are administered by an institution, they may nevertheless help to produce mu-
tually preferred outcomes. We see then that what matters is the effect; do the
sanctions bring about the preferred modes of behavior for the sanctioned group?
If they do, they are welcome; if not, they are unwelcome.
    A similar issue may be raised with regard to so-called internal sanctions. In
their accounts of the working of norms, sociologists and moral theorists have
noted the existence of self-imposed or internal sanctions.33 The general idea is
that, as a result of socialization, actors will internalize norms, that is, they will
come to accept that behavior in accordance with the norm is morally required of
them. Consequently, actors will be inhibited from deviation from the norm by
self-imposed sanctions. Well-socialized persons subject to internal sanctioning
may feel guilt and shame even at the thought of defection. The relevant question
in the current context is whether such sanctions are best seen as welcome or
    Before this question can be answered, we must consider whether the notion
of internal sanctions even makes sense in the context of perfectly rational ac-
tors. It would appear that for perfectly rational actors, internal sanctions are
inherently unacceptable because punishing oneself is costly and is hence irra-
tional. Consequently, the authors cited earlier who talk about internal sanctions
are implicitly bringing in a moral conception of the individual that violates the
assumption of Homo economicus.
    This objection is not sound, however. What matters to Homo economicus
is doing the best for herself. If internal sanctions cause her to move to an
individually superior outcome, then they are welcome, and if they cause her
to move to an otherwise inferior outcome, they are unwelcome. For example,
if internal sanctions cause two agents to seek the cooperative outcome in a
Prisoner’s Dilemma, then they are each better off for having the sanctions in
place. Whereas if internal sanctions cause those in the game of Heroism to adopt
the cooperative solution, they are worse off because of these sanctions. Thus,
whether internal constraints are rationally desirable depends on the contingent
issue of how often and to what degree one benefits from their presence versus
how often and to what degree one is hurt by their presence. In the abstract, then,
we cannot say whether internal sanctions are rational or not. Rather, they will
be welcome in some cases and unwelcome in others.34
    Before leaving this topic, the following objection to the very idea of SD
norms must be discussed. It might be wondered whether acting in accordance
with a norm out of the motive to avoid a sanction is really best thought of as an
act of conformity. After all, the action is motivated by the sanction and not by
the existence of the norm, per se. Remember, conformity, on my account, is a
causal notion; part of the reason for behaving in a certain manner must be the
fact that others are behaving in that manner. But this does not appear to be the
case when the reason for a certain behavior is a sanction.
                                 Rational Norms                                 67

   This objection appears to be valid in some instances and not in others. It will
depend on the cause of the sanctions. The proper causal condition necessary
for conformity is present when at least part of the cause of the sanctions is the
conforming behavior of the others. For example, in the game of Heroism, it is
plausible to suppose that unless the military authorities can count on a fairly
high degree of conformity to their dictate of heroic behavior, the sanctions will
not be imposed. In such a case, the conformity to the norm is a partial cause
of the sanctions which in turn cause conformity by particular actors. Thus,
behavior of a certain sort is the indirect cause of more behavior of the same
sort; hence, the causal requirement is satisfied, although indirectly.
   In sum, from the discussion in the previous section, we are able to see the
two respects in which the notion of an SD norm is a generalization of the notion
of a PD norm. The first relates to the strategic structure of the circumstances
of conformity. It was shown that SD norms may be maintained in situations
with strategic structures other than the Prisoner’s Dilemma or collective action
problem. This was seen for two cases, the game of Chicken and the game of
Heroism. The second manner in which SD norms are a more general notion than
PD norms has to do with the manner in which sanctions bring about conformity,
in particular, norms may be maintained by welcome as well as by unwelcome

                             III. Epistemic Norms
As mentioned at the outset of the chapter, the three types of rational norms
emerge either in strategic or nonstrategic contexts. The previous two sections
looked at the two types of strategic norms – coordination norms and sanction-
driven norms. It is now time to consider nonstrategic norms. Indeed, on the
surface, it is puzzling why norms would come about in nonstrategic contexts.
With nonstrategic norms, the agent does not receive a greater payoff for per-
forming an action of a certain type as a function of others also performing
actions of this type. Why then would someone conform to the actions of others,
if doing so does not have any beneficial effect for her? In spite of initial appear-
ances, however, it is indeed often rational to conform to norms in nonstrategic
contexts. The reason people sometimes conform to norms in such situations is
to economize on information costs. Rather than expending the costs to gather
the information to make a fully informed decision on her own, each agent may
instead conform to what others who are similarly situated are doing. Because
such acts of conformity are driven by epistemic considerations, the resulting
patterns of behavior are properly labeled epistemic norms.35 With such norms,
it is not that they are a substitute for information, rather epistemic norms are a
source of information.
68                the pattern conception of norms

    In general, for rational actors, the right thing to do will depend on the cir-
cumstances. But as circumstances change, it will take work to discover the
objectively rational thing to do. Fortunately, conformity to the behavior of
others sometimes affords a short-cut. Given that others around you are in a
comparable situation, and are intelligent, you may infer that what they are do-
ing is the right thing for you also. In other words, you can borrow the expertise
of others by conforming to their behavior. It is not difficult to imagine how such
behavior might grow into a norm. With each new person who conforms, the
total number of people performing a particular type of behavior in a particular
circumstance grows. This allows a greater number of people to witness that this
type of behavior is performed by others in these circumstances, which opens
the door for still more conformity. At some point in this growth process, it will
become natural to conclude that a norm has emerged.36
    The concept of an epistemic norm may be clarified with a few examples.
Suppose my neighbor is a child psychologist who in general seems to exhibit
good judgment and common sense in our occasional interactions. Under the
circumstances, I might be sensible to conform to my neighbor’s behavior re-
garding the treatment of children, especially if I am ill informed and do not
have ready access to other sources of information. There are no rules as such
that I follow. Rather, I observe her behavior and conform to it. For example,
if frequently she talks to her young infant in the backyard, I may take this as
evidence that this is a preferred form of behavior. If she reprimands her toddler
with a harsh tone or an occasional mild spanking, I may take this as appropriate
or at least acceptable behavior.
    I do what my neighbor does because she does it, that is, I allow my behavior to
conform to hers. My conformity is nonstrategic as the outcome I wish to produce
is not dependent on any choice of hers. As it stands, these are examples of single
acts of rationally motivated conformity in a nonstrategic situation. But similar
conforming acts might be performed by other parents in the neighborhood,
also in response to the behavior of the respected child psychologist. In such a
manner, a norm or set of norms could grow throughout the neighborhood. A
new family might move in to a part of the neighborhood such that they could not
observe the behavior of the child psychologist directly, but could observe the
behavior of some of the families that are already conforming their child-rearing
practices to those of the child psychologist. The new family might deem the
behavior of the other families worthy of imitation. Over time enough such acts
of conformity might occur such that it would be natural to say that a new set of
child-rearing practices had emerged in the neighborhood.
    Consider a second example. It has become something of a norm among
certain cultural groups in America to buy foreign automobiles. Such purchasers
appear to commonly believe that these automobiles are a better value than those
manufactured in America. While there are objective sources of information one
can consult to determine which automobiles are the best value, many buyers
                                 Rational Norms                                  69

probably do not do so. Rather, they rely on the judgment of those better informed,
and then conform to their choices. As the expression says, go with the smart
    A third example of behavior that might lead to an epistemic norm is breast
feeding, which in the last generation has made a comeback in the United States.
It is almost certainly the case that many of the women who have chosen to
breast feed do not have hard evidence that it is preferable to formula. Rather,
they conform to those who appear better informed about the issue and who
have chosen to breast feed. They economize on the cost of gathering infor-
mation by conforming their actions to those of persons perceived to be more
    Long before certain states began adopting seat belt laws, the advisability of
their use was debated. Many thought that seat belts saved lives. Others, however,
cited instances in which people lived because they were not belted in. Instead
of deciding on one’s own who was right, one might very well have chosen to
conform to the behavior of those who seemed better informed and better able
to evaluate social scientific data. Thus, one might decide to wear seat belts
because this was the trend among those who seem to exhibit good judgment
about such matters. Through repeated instances of conformity of this sort, a
norm of wearing seat belts might come about.
    Each of the preceding examples shares the feature that a norm may come
about and be maintained by actions, each of which is motivated by the desire to
conform to the actions of others, instead of becoming fully informed on one’s
own. In such scenarios, the like actions of others play an important causal role
in the best explanation of the choice of particular individuals to act likewise.
Accordingly, such practices would satisfy the causal condition for a norm as
first set out in Chapter One. In other respects, these practices also count as
norms because they are patterns of normatively governed behavior instantiated
in groups. The normative governance in the case of epistemic norms comes from
the rational choice of each particular conformer to promote her interest in the
context of a nonstrategic social setting. Finally, it is also clear that each of the
preceding practices counts as a norm; it would be quite natural, for instance,
to say that breast feeding is again the norm in some circles in the United
    Note that in contrast to sanction-driven norms considered in the previous
section, sanctions are not necessary for the maintenance of epistemic norms.
Consider, for example, the norm of brushing one’s teeth after every meal. One
might rationally decide to conform to this norm instead of determining for
oneself the optimal amount of times per day to brush one’s teeth. Yet one will
not be sanctioned for failing to conform to the norm. Even setting aside the
problem of detecting one’s deviation, the reason why others will not sanction
one in this example is obvious; by and large, others do not care whether or
not one brushes after every meal.37 Yet the norm may be maintained by acts
70                the pattern conception of norms

of conformity, nonetheless (seemingly, the conformity will tend to run along
family lines). Thus, we see that like coordination norms, but unlike SD norms,
sanctions are not necessary for the maintenance of epistemic norms.
   Though sanctions are not necessary, they will often be present in an at-
tenuated form. This was seen earlier to also be true for coordination norms.
For example, with the coordination norm of wearing a coat and tie to inter-
views, one will not be sanctioned for deviations by the world at large, yet those
who take one’s interests to heart or have something at stake themselves may
prescribe such behavior and sanction deviations. The same may hold for epis-
temic norms such as the norm of brushing after meals. Parents will often take an
interest in their children conforming to this norm and sanction non-conformity.
This is an important point to note as there appears to be an implicit albeit er-
roneous assumption at work in the sociological literature that all norms are
equally sanctioned by society at large.
   The next section looks briefly at some of the leading accounts of norms by
law and norms scholars. These accounts will be explored in greater depth in
Parts Two and Three of the book in applied legal contexts. The purpose of the
following introduction is to see from a bird’s-eye view where these accounts fit
into the conceptual apparatus developed in Part One.

                IV. Norms in the Theory of Law and Norms
The most striking fact about the conceptions of norms held by legal theorists
is that they all involve sanction-driven norms, although they do not always go
by that name. But within this type, these accounts are importantly distinct from
one another. Discussion should begin with Robert Ellickson’s account, which
has been the dominant influence in law and norms scholarship.
    Over the course of his book, Order Without Law, and in a series of arti-
cles, Ellickson has developed the leading argument in the legal literature for
the efficiency of social norms that function as solutions to iterated collective
action problems. Ellickson develops his position at greatest length in Order
Without Law. In the context of a modern day ranching and farming community
in Shasta County, California, Ellickson examines damage to crops, motorists,
and automobiles by wandering cattle, and damage to cattle by motorists.38
    One of Ellickson’s leading examples involves practices that have developed
with regard to boundary fences that are erected to control the wandering of
animals. Each party will benefit from the fence, but each prefers the other to bear
the cost of erecting and maintaining it, as fences are expensive.39 Generalizing
somewhat from the particular facts of the example, Ellickson calls this the
Specialized Labor Game and characterizes it with the payoff matrix shown in
Figure 2.16.40
    The residents of Shasta County are able to reach the welfare-maximizing
social practice as represented in the northeast quadrant. Ellickson argues that
                                   Rational Norms                              71

                                      Player B

                                        Build Fence         Shirk

                     Build Fence            3, 3             0, 7

         Player A
                     Shirk                 7, − 2            1, 1

                       Figure 2.16 Specialized Labor Game

it is the “close-knittedness” of the community that allows it to solve its fencing
problem. In this scenario, the problem is solved when one person does all the
work in providing the fence. Ellickson writes: “[M]embers of a close-knit group
develop and maintain norms whose content serves to maximize the aggregate
welfare that members obtain in their workaday affairs with one another.”41
Neighbors who share a common boundary may often be particularly close-knit
since they live physically close together and are thus likely to have repeated
interactions over a variety of everyday concerns. This may be especially true
for the ranchers and farmers in Ellickson’s study, as they earn a living off
their land and move about it often. Such multiplex42 social relationships allow
members of the community to sanction one another so that conformity to the
socially preferred practice becomes individually rational.43 Ellickson contends
that “the more close-knit a group, the more successful it will be at generating
and enforcing utilitarian norms to govern informal disputes.”44
    The Specialized Labor Game is an example of a sanction-driven norm.
While Ellickson does not discuss sanction-driven norms as such, sanctions
are nevertheless crucial to his account of welfare maximization among close-
knit groups. Repeated interaction and overlapping social networks afford the
participants the opportunity to credibly threaten to sanction in future play for
making dispreferred choices in current play.
    Note that on Ellickson’s account, the sanctions are utilized by one agent in
an attempt to influence the behavior of other agents. Briefly consider Robert
Cooter’s account next. Cooter focuses on the role of “internal” sanctions.45
Cooter’s account is distinctive in that not only is the norm internalized, but
the sanctions inducing conformity come from within as well. That is they are
internal sanctions, in contrast to the external sanctions imposed by others, as
is the case with sanction-driven norms. Once internalized, people will tend to
feel guilty if they fail to conform to the norm.
    For Cooter, internalization is essential to a norm. He writes, “a social norm
is ineffective in a community and does not exist unless people internalize it.”46
72                 the pattern conception of norms

According to Cooter, those who internalize a norm will be willing to bear small
costs to enforce it against others.47
    Next, consider Richard McAdams’s esteem-based account of the origin and
development of norms. McAdams takes on the daunting task of explaining how
norms initially arise.48 This has been the single most vexing question in the
theoretical literature on norms.49 Understanding McAdams’s account requires
understanding the so-called second-order collective action problem. On the
orthodox rational choice approach, norm maintenance requires sanctions. But
sanctions are costly to administer. Therefore, a second-order collective action
problem presents itself; rational actors will have an interest in free riding on
the provision of sanctions, as the marginal benefit to them from the effect of
this sanctioning on cooperation will almost surely be outweighed by the cost
to them of this sanctioning activity.
    McAdams’s theory proposes a means of overcoming the second-order col-
lective action problem. In short, McAdams argues that norms arise because
people seek the esteem of others.50 McAdams argues that under certain condi-
tions, withholding esteem can be a costless means of inflicting costs on others.51
McAdams fully accepts that these costs to people of others withholding esteem
are often extremely small.52 But he argues that a number of forces can cause a
weak desire for esteem to produce powerful norms.
    McAdams argues that people compete for the esteem of others.53 This is
because how one is esteemed will depend on how one stands next to others in
regard to those properties that make one esteem worthy or disesteem worthy.54
McAdams argues that under the right conditions, the desire for esteem produces
a norm. McAdams Specifies three conditions for such an event:

For some behavior X in some population of individuals, a norm may arise if (1) there is
a consensus about the positive or negative esteem worthiness of engaging in X (that is,
either most individuals in the relevant population grant, or most withhold, esteem from
those who engage in X); (2) there is some risk that others will detect whether one engages
in X; (3) the existence of this consensus and risk of detection is well-known within
the relevant population. When these conditions exist, the desire for esteem necessarily
creates costs of or benefits from engaging in X, a norm will arise if, for most people, the
esteem costs exceed the benefits of engaging in X.55

According to McAdams, if individuals desire esteem, and if the above conditions
exist, it necessarily follows that one who violates a consensus incurs a cost.
McAdams argues that if the consensus is that behavior X is commendable
and the absence of X is deplorable, and the consensus is well known, then
A will deduce that others will think less of her if they detect her failure to
do X.56 The esteem cost is the probability that a violation of the consensus
will be detected multiplied by the value of the esteem that would then be
lost.57 According to McAdams, a norm arises when, for most individuals in
the population, this esteem cost exceeds the cost of following the consensus.58
                                Rational Norms                                 73

Thus, McAdams argues that if most group members prefer bearing the cost
of doing X to the esteem cost of failing to do X, most members will do X.59
Under these circumstances, we can say there is an esteem-based norm obligating
individuals to do X.
    McAdams argues that certain mechanisms magnify the power of esteem
sanctions.60 All of these arise due to the fact that esteem is a relative good.
McAdams argues that there is a feedback effect whereby people competing to
be “well thought of” compared to others discover that the cost of their non-
compliance increases as compliance increases:61 Not surprisingly, the status
gain from compliance decreases as compliance increases. But individuals may
nevertheless seek to achieve high status (“hero status”).62 Second, McAdams
argues that esteem sanctioning can produce material sanctioning.63 He plausibly
claims that when people disapprove of those who approve norm violators, they
produce secondary norms obligating enforcement of primary norms by disap-
proving primary norm violators.64 The pursuit of hero status and the feedback
effect generally can cause individuals to incur costs inflicting material sanctions
on norm violators.65 The end result of the competition for relative esteem under
these mechanisms is that a weak behavioral standard may be transformed into
a very demanding one.66
    As this brief description of McAdam’s theory of norm emergence indicates,
his account of norms is, like Ellickson’s and Cooter’s, sanction-driven. In par-
ticular, his account is driven by esteem sanctions.
    Finally, consider Eric Posner’s signaling account of norms. I will first set
out the core features of his account. Like that of McAdams, Posner’s account
ambitiously takes on the difficult topic of setting out a general theory of the
emergence and maintenance of social norms. Posner argues that social norms are
sets of rational acts whereby individuals seek to signal to others that they have
low discount rates and hence that they would be good cooperative partners.67
In general, signaling models seek to explain the manner by which words and
deeds can serve a signaling function.68 In a textbook-signaling example, the
signal is used to communicate information regarding something about which
there is nonverifiable information.69 For example, warranties may be used to
communicate that a product is of high quality. The signal works because the
sellers of the higher quality products are able to send the signal more cheaply.70
In the warranty example, Baird, Gertner, and Picker explain: “High quality
sellers may be able to signal their type by selling goods with a warranty. Because
their goods break down less often, these sellers can offer a warranty more
cheaply than low-quality sellers.”
    According to Posner, individuals need to signal that they value the future
sufficiently such that they would be willing to forego the immediate benefits
of defecting in order to derive the future benefits of a sustained cooperative re-
lationship. Posner emphasizes that signaling is a distinct form of activity from
cooperative behavior itself. He writes, “Defection in cooperative endeavors is
74                the pattern conception of norms

deterred by fear of reputational injury but the signaling behavior independently
gives rise to forms of collective action that can be of great significance. Peo-
ple who care about future payoffs not only resist the temptation to cheat in a
relationship; they signal their ability to resist the temptation by conforming to
styles of dress, speech, conduct, and discrimination.”71
    As this quote indicates, on Posner’s account, signaling allows actors to com-
municate to others that they have the “ability to resist the temptation” to defect
in the current game. Thus, signaling is logically prior to actual rational acts
of cooperation. It is signaling that may afford actors better opportunities for
cooperative relationships at some later date.72 Whether cooperation occurs will
in part depend on the discount rates of the actors. The more one discounts the
future, the less likely one is to forego the immediate one-time benefit gained
from the defection in favor of the delayed benefit of future cooperation. Posner’s
model makes crucial use of the concept of discount rates. He refers to those
with low discount rates as “good types” and those with high discount rates as
“bad types.”73
    To distinguish themselves from bad types, good types engage in actions that
are called “signals.” Signals reveal type if only the good types, and not the bad
types, can afford to send them, and everyone knows this. Because a good type
is one who values future returns more than a bad type does, one signal is to
incur large, observable costs prior to entering a relationship. For example, if a
good type values a future payoff of 10 at a 10 percent discount and a bad type
values the same payoff at a 30 percent discount, the good type can distinguish
himself by incurring an otherwise uncompensated cost of 8.
    The goal in searching for cooperative partners by means of being a signal
watcher is to find people with low discount rates. Those with populations for
high discount rates will be sanctioned by others’ lack of interest in cooperating
with them. Accordingly, actors will seek to convince others that they have
low discount rates. Thus, sanctions play a crucial role in Posner’s account just
as they do in the accounts of Ellickson, Cooter, and McAdams. By the lights
of the pattern conception of norms, signaling norms are then another instance
in the more general category of sanction-driven norms. Signaling, according to
Posner, is a means of establishing a reputation as a cooperator. He writes: “One
wants a general reputation as a ‘cooperator,’ a person with a low discount rate,
and one establishes that reputation both by declining to cheat in repeated games
and by sending signals at every opportunity.”74
    On Posner’s account, signals are arbitrary in the sense that any behavior
could potentially come to serve as a signal as long as the behavior is observ-
able and has an associated cost.75 Posner seeks to fit a wide variety of behav-
iors into this model of arbitrary signals: engagement rings, deferred sex and
unprotected sex, obedience to law, voting, patriotic displays, self-censorship,
race discrimination, and nationalism. Posner argues that it is through norm en-
trepreneurs that these signals become established. He discusses a variety of
                                Rational Norms                                 75

actors who sometimes play this role: arbiters of taste, sellers of commercial
goods, consultants, protocol experts, academics, journalists, politicians, and
political activists.76
    Because the signal is costly, it will mean that some actors – the bad types –
will be prudentially excluded from sending it. The result will be a separating
equilibrium in which good types act in one manner and bad types act in another
manner.77 For example, a good type may be willing to incur a greater cost
from giving a gift in the early period of a relationship.78 The less one discounts
the future benefits of the relationship, the more one is willing to spend early
on in order to signal one’s low discount rate in order to foster a cooperative
relationship. Social norms then on Posner’s account are simply the patterns of
behavior that result as the equilibrium outcomes of various signaling games
such as the game of gift giving.
    The discussion in this section has demonstrated that the leading law and
norms accounts have previously focused on one of the three types of ratio-
nal norms. Ellickson, Cooter, McAdams, and Posner all develop accounts that
involve sanction-driven norms. Each of these accounts contains an element of
truth. Esteem is desired and its pursuit may cause people to act in a coop-
erative manner, particularly toward those whose esteem they especially value.
Conformity to norms may sometimes serve a signaling function. And close-knit
communities may allow repeat players to share beneficial social practices. What
I dispute is the comprehensiveness claimed for these accounts. All are sanction-
driven accounts, but the world of norms and customs is a world with three types
of rational custom, not one. The importance of this will be seen throughout the
book. We will see norms that are plausibly seen as welfare-enhancing despite
the fact that they are not maintained in close-knit communities. We will see
important norms that are not plausibly seen as combinations of signaling acts.
And we will see norms that are not plausibly the result of the desire for esteem.
    I contend that each of the three accounts fails as a general account of the
emergence of norms. In my view, no full account has been set out thus far. While
I do not think there currently exists a general emergence account of norms (in
Part One I develop a maintenance account) nevertheless I think that one can, by
means of thick description, set out an emergence account for particular norms.
This is precisely what I do in Part Three, where I will provide a detailed account
of the emergence of website privacy norms.

                             V. Irrational Norms
The preceding discussion has set out three types of rational norms. It will be of
interest to end the discussion with a brief consideration of what irrational norms
might be like, by the lights of the theory set out herein.79 Norms are patterns of
rationally governed behavior instantiated in groups, maintained by conformity.
What makes a norm rational is that the constitutive conforming acts are rational.
76                the pattern conception of norms

Irrational norms, then, if they exist, would be patterns of rationally governed
behavior in which the agents conforming acts are irrational. In other words,
the agents conform for irrational reasons.80 It is unclear whether there are any
irrational norms, for although it is certain that particular individuals sometimes
do irrational things, it is far less certain that people act irrationally in the sort
of systematic and patterned manner that would be necessary for norms to be
maintained. Irrational actions might be fairly common, but not irrational norms.
The existence of irrational norms entails the existence of irrational actions, but
the reverse does not hold.
    Rationality and irrationality are not uncontested concepts. On some views,
there is little that is irrational. For example, on one extreme view, it would not
be irrational to turn on the cold tap if one had a preference for a hot shower
as the preference for tap turning and the preference for water temperature are
logically distinct preferences, such that one could have these two distinct pref-
erences without violating any of the axioms of decision theory. But one need
not radically narrow the scope of irrational action in such a manner in order
to question the existence of irrational norms. Consider the following model
of irrational action, which will be called the failure model. It is arguably the
most plausible general model for understanding irrationality. On this model, it
is doubtful that irrational norms would exist.
    People are not perfect. They are neither perfectly rational nor perfectly moral.
It need not be the case that when one fails to be perfectly moral it is because
one is being rational, or that when one fails to be perfectly rational it is because
one is being moral. One may simply suffer from a failure to act either perfectly
morally or perfectly rationally, that is, from a mere breakdown in the decision-
making mechanism. In such cases, we may say that one acts irrationally, at least
when the failure of morality or rationality is egregious. On this model, perhaps
it is best said that irrationality is a failing rather than a true type of motivation.
The existence of irrational acts need not contradict the assumption that people
are rational and moral; it is just that they are not perfectly so. In fact, if one
assumes that people are basically rational and moral, it is hard to see what larger
role “irrational motivation” can play other than serving as a label for the failure
of these positive types of motivation.
    Seeing irrational acts as failures is instructive for understanding why irra-
tional acts need not lead to irrational norms. If irrational conforming acts are
merely failures, there need be no more than a random chance that they should
occur together. Regression toward the mean should lead away from irrational
acts of conformity being found in the patterns necessary to constitute norms. As
an analogue, consider the manufacture of automobiles. Suppose one in every
thousand parts that goes into an automobile is defective. If the defective parts
randomly occur, we should not expect the same part to be defective in all the
cars. So too, if irrational acts randomly occur, we should not expect the same
irrational act type to be produced by a number of people. But this is what is
                                 Rational Norms                                   77

needed for an irrational norm to exist; many people must perform the same
irrational act type. Hence, we should not expect to see irrational norms on the
failure model of irrational acts. Thus, if all irrational action is best explained in
terms of the failure model, we would not expect to see irrational norms. Failures
occur randomly, so a pattern should not be expected.
    But all irrational action may not be random. Perhaps one type of irrationality
is blind conformity, that is, conformity to the behavior of others without good
reason.81 Suppose such behavior exists. Under the best circumstances, it seems
reasonable to suppose such irrational conforming acts may combine into norms.
Consider the following example. The Illinois Lottery Commission has in the
past waged an ad campaign to convince people to bet on their “lucky number.”
On many views, it is irrational to bet on lucky numbers. Suppose the lottery
commission is successful in convincing a number of people to acquire a lucky
number and bet on it each payday. This pattern of behavior might catch on such
that after some time many people bet on their lucky numbers largely because
other people are betting on their lucky numbers. It has become the thing to do.
It could then be truthfully said that in Illinois there is a norm such that people
bet on their lucky number each payday. At least on some views, this would
count as an irrational norm as the constitutive acts are conforming acts, and
they are irrational. How prevalent one thinks such norms are will depend on
how prevalent one thinks blind conformity is.
    A second type of action that is widely agreed to be irrational is called shooting
the messenger. Shooting the messenger is blaming the bearer of bad news even
when this person had no causal role in producing the bad news. This phrase
stems from the example of Cleopatra who is said to have killed the bearer of the
news of Caesar’s defeat. Suppose it became the norm among a group to blame
the bearer of bad news as indeed it may have been in the classical world of this
example. People would look to others to determine what constituted being the
bearer of bad news and the appropriate scope and form the blame should take.
Such a norm seems a clear-cut case of an irrational norm.
    In working out the boundaries of what counts as irrational, it should be noted
that there may exist norms that are in some sense caused by irrational behavior
but that are not themselves irrational norms. For example, weakness of will is
a form of behavior that is widely regarded as irrational. There may be a norm
against offering drinks to a recovering alcoholic. This norm may be the result
of weakness of will in the sense that the norm need not exist and probably
would not exist were individuals not tempted to act against their own long-term
preferences out of weakness of will. Nonetheless, this is not an irrational norm
as the acts of conformity of not offering drinks to recovering alcoholics are not
themselves irrational acts.
    There is yet another means by which norms that are otherwise irrational
might come about among rational actors. This is through the imposition of
sanctions. For example, a dictator might impose severe sanctions that have the
78                the pattern conception of norms

effect of making it in the interests of a group to practice a pattern of behavior
they would otherwise find irrational. Agents might find it desirable to conform
to others’ behavior as the means of best satisfying the dictator. In such a case,
an SD norm would be present. In one sense of the term, however, we might
wish to say that the norm of behavior for this group is irrational. This is similar
to the norms of heroism imposed on the unwilling group due to sanctions from
the military authorities considered in the section on SD norms. In each case, the
norm is unwelcome to the group. The difference is that in the case of heroism,
the sanctioned behavior was previously individually undesirable, whereas, in
the present case, the sanctioned behavior was previously irrational.82

We have seen that social norms may be rational or irrational, strategic or non-
strategic, and strategic but maintainable with or without sanctions. Coordination
norms and SD norms have strategic structures, while epistemic norms do not;
however, coordination norms and epistemic norms would exist in a world free
of sanctions, while SD norms would not. This typology of norms and customs
is broader than previous accounts, which have tended to either develop strategic
or nonstrategic accounts but not one account combining both elements.
    Previous accounts have not adequately bridged the gap between strategic
and nonstrategic norms and customs, but the discussion in this chapter demon-
strates that there is no reason not to have a bridge as the concepts are compatible.
What cuts across both strategic and nonstrategic norms is the basic act of ratio-
nal conformity. Conformity may be rationally motivated in one of two ways.
In strategic situations, the motivation is to achieve the coordination benefit.
In nonstrategic circumstances, the motivation is to economize on the cost of
information. Both of these motivations for conformity to norms satisfy the dic-
tate of methodological individualism. Accordingly, the account of conformity
developed here does not fall prey to the sorts of criticisms that rational choice
theorists make of sociological accounts of conformity. The test will come when
this typology is applied to the law in order to determine which types of customs
in fact have played a role. If it turns out that the law has importantly incorpo-
rated norms and customs of all three types, this will serve as a sort of empirical
justification or confirmation of the felicity of the set of theoretical distinctions
set out in this chapter.
                       Norm Utilitarianism

   It looks as if a working moral code must comprise a set of specific directives like,
   ‘No cigar smoking!’ These directives might not guide people to do exactly what
   ideally anyone would like them to do, but they are the best that can be done by
   the instrument of a moral code.1
                                                                     Richard Brandt

The connection between utilitarianism and the rational actor account of norms
developed in the chapter is deep and fundamental. Utilitarianism has a com-
pletely instrumental theory of right action. Right action is simply that which
maximizes the good. The utilitarian should take note of the fact that there are
three structures of norms. Rational actors’ conformity to these norms is evidence
of their welfare-producing capabilities.
   In general, utilitarians have paid little attention to the theory of norms. The
discussion in Chapter One suggests a possible explanation. Utilitarians, like the
social theorists discussed in Chapter One, have been distracted from a proper
examination of norms by their focus on rule-based accounts. This chapter will
examine the role that norms should properly play in utilitarianism, and more
generally in any critical normative approach to law that gives a prominent role
to weighing consequences.

                 I. Norms Versus Rules in Utilitarian Theory
For the utilitarian, the fundamental question for practical ethics is how best to
maximize utility. Rules have been the answer most often given by utilitarians.
The utility-maximizing society will be the one built on the best set of moral
and social rules. I will argue that this is incorrect. Rather, the society that
incorporates the best set of norms will be the utility-maximizing society. I will
first argue for the thesis that utilitarianism should be supplemented by the theory
80                the pattern conception of norms

of norms. After the likely utilitarian response to this argument is entertained
and rejected, I will argue for the stronger Supplementary Thesis, which is the
thesis that norms should displace rules as the linchpin of practical utilitarian
    Norms are important to utilitarianism simply because norms are important
determinants of consequences. Though norms may have a positive or negative
effect on consequences, I will here concentrate on the positive. Given the anal-
ysis of the previous chapter, it is not surprising that there are three main means
by which norms generate utility. The first and simplest is that they reduce cal-
culation costs. In addition, norms help solve recurrent coordination problems
and Prisoner’s Dilemmas. Calculation savings will be examined first.
    From its inception, utilitarianism has been criticized for requiring an unac-
ceptable amount of calculation as a prelude to each decision.2 It is indeed true
that calculating is an expensive activity. Norms, however, make much of the
need for calculation redundant in cases where certain act types are easily seen to
be positively correlated with utility payoffs. It is then not necessary to perform
a calculation each time a situation of a recognizable type arises. The stronger
the correlation, the more confident one can be in the absence of calculation. For
example, consider the act type of opening doors for the elderly and disabled.
It appears likely that there is a strong positive correlation between tokens of
this type and utility generation. It is then utile to forgo calculating and proceed
with the behavior on each occasion in which the relevant situation arises. This
is not yet a norm for thus far only one agent is involved. But just as there is no
reason for a particular person to calculate at each decision juncture, so too there
is no reason for a particular person to calculate even the first time around. She
may simply follow the norm that is extant in the culture and that is therefore
relatively costlessly brought before her mind as a ready prescription for action.
Thus the existence of the norm in the culture has a general tendency to reduce
calculation costs and hence is utile.
    A related point is that norms have the tendency to reduce calculation errors
when they are well adapted to their environment, as they often are. The norm,
if followed, will be more utile than what would tend to be produced by agents
acting on their own, even agents who performed the requisite calculations.
This is because agents on the whole will be likely to produce more errors in
calculating than will be produced by a process of norm selection, either invisible
hand or explicit. The best examples of this claim are norms that are influenced
by experts. Norms of smoking behavior are changing quickly in this society. To
all appearances, they are tracking facts determined by experts regarding health
risks from primary and now secondary smoking. If agents do not have these
norms to consult as possible prescriptions for behavior, but instead must perform
calculations on their own, there will be greater errors. Individual agents are less
able to evaluate evidence expertly and are thus more prone to error. It is worth
                               Norm Utilitarianism                                81

keeping in mind that the reduction of calculation errors is just a special case of
the reduction of calculation costs. For example, it would be possible in principle
for each agent to become a medical expert on the effects of smoking, if not for
the prohibitive costs in practice. Nonetheless, it is instructive to emphasize the
manner in which norms allow for a greater level of expertise or distilled wisdom
to pervade decision making.3
    There is a finer point that can be added to the general discussion of norms and
calculation costs. Norms sometimes become second nature to such an extent that
one follows them without trying. One is able to conform with a minimal amount
of attention just as one may drive inattentively for great stretches across the Great
Plains. The ability of the mind to focus on particular thoughts, feelings, and tasks
is precious. If it is squandered on myriad trivial decisions and calculations, it
will not be available for more important tasks. Norms make room for innovative
uses of the mind by making behavior routine. One can view the increasing
complexity of Western technological society as the successive normalizing of
more and more complex patterns of behavior.4
    Along with economizing on calculation, norms generate utility by bringing
about social coordination. The most cited example of a convention in the rational
choice literature is that regarding the choice of which side of the road to drive
on. The choice is conventional because it does not matter which side we choose
as long as we coordinate on the same choice. A widely followed – though rarely
discussed – norm is its pedestrian equivalent: the norm of walking on one side
of sidewalks, hallways, and the like. The walking norm is not so straightforward
as the driving norm. Roughly, it is as follows: Walk wherever you want, except
when someone is approaching, then move to the right, unless you see that they
are not moving to their right, in which case, try to coordinate with what they
are doing so as to avoid collision. This norm has the strategic structure of
a coordination norm. This is a norm of behavior to which nearly all people
conform, sanctioning defectors if only by means of a sidelong glance. One
easily sees the difficulty of getting about in the absence of a norm to regulate
    At this most basic level, norms like this are welfare-enhancing simply be-
cause they coordinate social interaction. Social coordination cannot be ex-
plained or reduced to the benefit of reducing calculation costs. In the preceding
example, more information about the person one is approaching will not do
any good. This is not a calculation problem; in the absence of a norm, there is
no correct side of the sidewalk. Each person’s choice is dependent on what the
other does. This can be inefficient. We do not want people bumping into one
another, nor do we want them stopping dead in their tracks, each waiting for
the other to choose a side.
    Another example of the phenomenon of social coordination is that of lan-
guage. One can best understand language as a set of interrelated conventions
82                the pattern conception of norms

that functions to make our lives easier by facilitating communication. Life
would be intolerable if not impossible without the ability to communicate with
shared language. But the patterns of understanding by which we communicate
can be seen not merely as conventions but also as norms. To the extent that
we explicitly teach language to children, we do so in a normative manner, let-
ting them know that they should speak in certain ways. And to the extent that
proper usage is maintained among adults, it is done by implicitly communicat-
ing that defectors will be punished through loss of opportunity, ridicule, and
    A third means by which norms may generate utility is that they allow groups
to solve iterated collective action problems or Prisoner’s Dilemmas. In a world
in which self-interest operates, bringing about a social optimum is difficult.
The utilitarian prefers mutual cooperation. The problem is that self-interested
agents may have no reason to cooperate on any particular play. But if an ongoing
norm that creates the needed motivation for cooperation can be established,
self-interest can be reconciled with the utilitarian desiderata. As discussed in
Chapter Two, there are a variety of means by which it may come to be in an
agent’s interest to cooperate in iterated Prisoner’s Dilemmas.5 If any of these
means can be effected, then each agent gets what she wants without defecting.
If no one defects, the best situation obtains for the group as a whole, which is
as the utilitarian would want. With this last example, we have seen three main
means by which norms generate utility. First, they reduce calculation costs;
second, they allow for social coordination; and third, they allow for the solution
of collection action problems.
    In general, it can be said of norms that by coordinating individual behavior
into social patterns, they create an environment of stable expectations that are
efficient because agents act with greater assurance of the outcomes. Agents
know how other agents will act in certain situations and know that other agents
know how they will act. A widely accepted justification of the rule of law is
that it provides stability of expectations.6 Because patterns of legal decision
are consistent across time and to some extent across geographical space, agents
can proceed with their plans with a greater grasp of likely contingencies than
they could were the law in flux. Using informal rather than formal sanctions,
nonlegal norms function in a parallel manner. If an agent is in an environment
in which particular norms are widely extant, she is better able to predict and
strategically reason about the behavior of others.
    A reasonable response to the demonstration that norms are utility generators
might be the following. Norms such as walking on one side of sidewalks are
insignificant. Though in principle such norms are utility generators, in practice
little utility is actually at issue. Thus, such norms are of no real interest to the
    Two points are relevant for rebutting this objection. First, it cannot be gen-
eralized that all norms are of no interest to utilitarians simply because some
                               Norm Utilitarianism                                 83

norms are insignificant. Consider for example the previously mentioned norms
that make up the common language of a culture. These norms are undoubtedly
significant contributors to social welfare. Second, although it may be true that
many norms are best seen as moral minutiae, what matters is the sheer number
of such norms. Once one begins to notice norms, one will see that there is a
very great number of them. Taken as a group, they largely determine the course
of our social lives. Thus, it is true that many norms considered in isolation have
only a marginal impact on the commonweal, but that norms taken as a set have
a great impact.
   One reason norms may not receive the credit they deserve is that norms
are often taken for granted. We tend not to notice that everyone is acting in
a certain manner, precisely because everyone is acting in a certain manner.
Sometimes, one only becomes aware of a norm when traveling in a culture
in which different norms hold, making it immediately obvious that some-
thing is different. The natural response is to search for the new culture’s pat-
terns. With the norm of walking on the right, for example, perhaps one will
discover an alternative norm, or perhaps no norm. The Tower of Babel is a
metaphor for social chaos. An absence of shared behavior, a normative chaos,
would affect not only a group’s speech from the Tower but also a group’s
actions on the ground. Such a lack of coordination would be tremendously
   Having seen that norms are indeed significant generators of utility, the first
premise of the argument for the Supplementary Thesis is established. The sec-
ond premise of the argument is simply the claim that utilitarians have neglected
to study or assimilate the theory of norms. This is self-evident from a study of
the utilitarian literature, which contains almost no discussion of social norms.
Norms are important to utilitarianism, but utilitarians have previously neglected
them. Thus, the theory needs supplementation.

                    II. Rules: The Tail That Wags the Dog
The utilitarian will respond to the preceding argument as follows. Norms are
indeed important to utilitarianism, but they have already been incorporated into
the theory under the guise of rules; norms are just the causal downstream of
rules.8 Utilitarians do not think that rules in a vacuum are felicitous. Utility
is generated only when rules are acted upon in a population. And rules that
are acted upon are norms. Following the position of the rule theorist as set
out in Chapter One, the utilitarian might argue that for every norm there is
a rule, and focusing on rules is most interesting. As evidence for this claim,
traditional utilitarians will contend that the utilitarian virtues I cited for norms –
they save on calculation costs, promote social coordination, and solve collective
action problems – can be accomplished with rules. Agents who follow rules
need not calculate on each occasion. And when rules are common knowledge,
84                the pattern conception of norms

agents will be able to act in a unified manner, promoting social coordination
and solving collective action problems. Thus premise two is false. Utilitarians
have not neglected norms; they have previously incorporated them into their
theory under another guise.
    It is false, however, that for each norm there is a corresponding rule. Consider
the example discussed earlier of walking on the right. This is a norm for which
no one is taught a rule. The norm is maintained by a process of conformity
that does not involve rules. Examples of norms to which no rule is attached are
bountiful in social life.
    The rule proponent will grant that although utilitarians characteristically talk
as if all rules were expressly stated or occurrently formulated, in principle the
utilitarian need not make this strong claim. All she need claim is that for each
norm there is a rule that could be formulated; these are the unwritten rules that
pervade our lives. To take the walking norm as an example, though people do
not explicitly state it, the rule they follow is obvious and could be stated: One
should walk on the right.
    This move does not solve all difficulties for the rule theorist. For it is simply
false that peoples’ behavior is governed by rules of this sort. As discussed in
Chapter One, while rules are short linguistic phrases such as Do not lie or Walk
on the right, the actual norms that people follow are much more complex. There
are all sorts of exceptions to rules that are commonly understood and that form
the details of the normative fabric of groups, differentiating one group from
another. But these subtle differences are not captured in the rules, whether they
are explicit or implicit.
    The utilitarian, however, has a ready answer to this objection. It is that
the real rule, the underlying rule, or as I will hereafter call it, the Ideal
Rule, is much more complex than the rules that can be quickly formulated,
explicitly or implicitly. The ideal rule will contain all sorts of exception
clauses and qualifying conditions that suit it to the actual subtleties of the real
    While it is indeed open to the utilitarian to make this adjustment, it is impor-
tant to note that these ideal rules are no longer anything like rules as they have
traditionally been discussed by utilitarians. Utilitarians have characteristically
offered what I will call the Commandment conception of rules. That is, rules
are like the popular conception of the Ten Commandments.
    Before we can fully understand the significance of the rule proponent’s
shift from this traditional conception of rules to the Ideal Rule conception,
it is necessary to examine the traditional conception more closely. Given the
central importance that utilitarians give rules, it is surprising that these features
have not previously been explicitly discussed in detail. There are six central
features of the Commandment conception of rules. The first two elements are
characteristics of the rules themselves, that they are pithy and apply universally.
The third element is a feature of the set of rules, specifically that the set contains
                                Norm Utilitarianism                                  85

a relatively small number of rules. The last three features address the role that
rules play in determining action, specifically, how they are formulated, how
they are transmitted, and how they are applied to particular situations.

                   A. The Commandment Conception of Rules
1. pithiness. By the pithiness of moral rules, I refer to the common concep-
tion of them as brief, linguistic statements that capture the essential content of
behavior that is either prescribed or proscribed. Among utilitarians, Brandt is
unusually explicit in discussing the pithiness of moral rules. Yet, this feature is
characteristic of the rules utilitarians typically cite and is implicit in their discus-
sion of them. In On Liberty, Mill, for instance, provides the following examples:
“Keep promises,” “Do not murder” and “Tell no lies.”10 In Utilitarianism, he
says that one should not “rob or murder, betray or deceive.”11
   John Austin, one of Mill’s tutors, clearly conceives of moral rules as pithy,
linguistic items. He writes:

The inferences suggested to our minds by repeated experience and observation are,
therefore, drawn into principles, or compressed into maxims. These we carry about us
ready for use, and apply to individual cases promptly or without hesitation: without
reverting to the process by which they were obtained; or without recalling, and arraying
before our minds, the numerous and intricate considerations of which they are handy

   In Austin’s talk of inferences that are “compressed into maxims” or “handy
abridgments,” we have good evidence that he implicitly understood moral rules
as pithy statements.
   In developing his utilitarian conception of the “Ideal Moral Code,” Brandt
makes the following comment, “It looks as if a working moral code must
comprise a set of specific directives like, ‘No cigar smoking!’ These directives
might not guide people to do exactly what ideally anyone would like them to do,
but they are the best that can be done by the instrument of a moral code.”13 In
this passage, we see an example of a pithy rule, which, as Brandt admits, is not
the ideal specification of the appropriate behavior. Brandt says that this is the
best that can be expected of a moral code but provides no explanation for this
remark. We will find the explanation later in his account of rule transmission.
The idea is that these rules must be brief if they are to be taught and memorized.
In addition, moral rules must be pithy if they are to be universal and generally
applicable. This connection is alluded to in the following passage from Richard
Hare: “The prima facie [rules] are general in two connected senses; they are
rather simple and unspecific, and they admit of exceptions, in the sense that it
is possible to go on holding them while allowing that in particular cases one
may break them.”14
86                 the pattern conception of norms

2. universality. Utilitarians take it as given that the correct set of moral
rules will apply universally (within a society). First, it is necessary to understand
universality, as it applies to rules, as there is a sense in which any rule, no matter
how context dependent, is universally applicable. For example, the Soliz family
in West El Paso may have a moral rule that says the last person home at night
should walk the dog, close the garage door and lock up. This rule can be seen
as universally applicable; the full statement of the rule is, “For any individual,
if you are a member of the Soliz family and you are the last one in at night. . . .”
This rule applies vacuously to all members of the society who do not meet
the antecedent condition of belonging to the Soliz family. Clearly, however,
this is not the sense of universal that utilitarians have in mind. Mill speaks
of the “ethical creed”15 to which all of mankind can agree. This, according
to Mill, is composed of “rules of morality for the multitude.”16 A parallel
conception resurfaces in Brandt’s “Social Moral Code,” which is meant to
guide the behavior of all members of society.17 For example, “Do not lie,” is a
rule everyone should follow. The “ethical creed,” and “social moral code” are
meant to consist of moral rules that are general enough to apply substatively to all

3. small numbers. The third element of the Commandment conception is
that there are relatively few rules. This feature is connected to the feature of
universality. If rules are to apply substantively to all people, there cannot be
too many of them because people do not have enough features in common. A
second reason is that the need to teach the moral code limits its size. Brandt
[The moral code] must not contain items too numerous to be taught by the methods
(e.g. classical conditioning) which must be used to interiorize moral principles; so it
will probably restrict itself to matters of some importance in the society. . . . We might
then select some of these principles – the more important ones for that group – and teach
them as the moral code for that society.18

So according to the Commandment conception, rules are pithy, universal,
and relatively small in number. Consider now how these rules are thought to

4. rule formation and transmission. Rule formation and transmis-
sion are best explicated together. In the utilitarian literature, two different means
of rule formation are discussed. Rules are either developed by average, private
utilitarian agents or formed by experts representing the state, church, academia,
and so on. Rules formed by private citizens are allowed to be idiosyncratic, while
rules formed by experts are meant to be common to all. (An idiosyncratic rule
is accepted by the agent who formulates it, while a common rule is accepted
by all agents.) If all rules in society are idiosyncratic, the theory does not need
                                 Norm Utilitarianism                                     87

an account of rule transmission. Each agent simply forms and acts on her own
rules. But if rules are to be common, a process is needed to transmit them.
   Although utilitarians sometimes write as if there is nothing to rule follow-
ing but creating one’s rules and acting on them, rule commonality and hence
rule transmission must be a part of any plausible account of the best utilitarian
society. Without it, maximal utility generation is impossible. Recall the three
main types of utility benefit that purportedly may be derived from rules: re-
duced calculation costs, social coordination, and resolution of collective action
problems. If rules are idiosyncratic, time will be saved because one need not
calculate on each occasion. But an initial calculation to determine the rule still
will be necessary. If rules are common, however, even that first calculation is
unnecessary because one will have learned the rule from family or friends. In
addition, and obviously enough, if all rules are idiosyncratic, social coordination
and consonant collective action will be difficult to achieve because each agent
will be marching to the beat of a different drummer. Even though common rules
are necessary, both types can coexist. Some rules may be generated by experts
and transmitted to the citizenry, while other rules are privately formulated and
either remain idiosyncratic or come to reign within some limited domain.
   Mill appears to think that for the most part individuals do not formulate
their own rules. He writes, “all rational creatures go out upon the sea of life
with their minds made up on the common questions of right and wrong.”19
Where, then, does Mill think rules come from? He does not precisely answer
the question, but we may come closest to discovering what he has in mind by
considering the following passages: “There has been ample time, namely, the
whole past duration of the human species. During all that time, mankind has
been learning by experience the tendencies of actions; on which experience all
the prudence, as well as all the morality of life, are dependent.”20 The picture
seems to be that somehow the rules are passed down from one generation to the
next. Mill does not, however, provide a precise mechanism for how this process
takes place. More importantly, he does not say where the rules originate. The
closest he comes to specifying the origin is in the following remark: “Mankind
must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions
on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules
of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded
in finding better.”21 With the claim that philosophers are to play a part in
formulating better rules, we see that at least to some extent Mill endorses the
expert conception of rule formation.
   In the following passage from Anthony Quinton, rules are implicitly under-
stood as resulting from explicit or “reflective” formulation in order to serve a
common purpose:

This argument applies the principle of the division of labour to the domain of moral
activity. It holds that the reflective task of elaborating general rules of beneficial conduct
88                 the pattern conception of norms

should be undertaken on the one hand by specially qualified people, that is to say
moralists, or, on the other, during periods of time that are free from exigencies of
action. In this way a stock of ready-made rules will be made available for moral agents
confronted with the need for choice.22

   Brandt’s scattered comments regarding the source of rules do not reveal a
coherent theory. For example, he refers to the “codebuilder”23 at one point but
a few pages later remarks, “Nothing prevents us, however, from learning more
about the optimal specific rules; philosophers, psychologists, and other social
scientists could co-operate in determining what a welfare-maximizing moral
code would be. Indeed, it is not clear why much greater effort is not being
made in this direction.”24 Whether these experts should convene a congress or
advocate for a presidential commission to choose the rules is left to the reader’s
imagination. Apparently, what matters to Brandt are not these administrative
details but that an ideal moral code can be developed on high and then brought
down for public dissemination. While Brandt does not discuss precisely how
dissemination or transmission work, the remarks he makes in passing reveal
the picture he has in mind. He mentions the “teachers of morality – the parents,
educators in the early grades.”25 He also discusses, “publically espousing such
a system.”26 Like Brandt, Mill repeatedly emphasizes the importance of edu-
cation for instilling the proper rules. As he says, the rules of morality should
be “taught to the young, and enforced by law and opinion.”27
   In general, utilitarians seem to think that rules are taught by parents, teachers
and the like or are embodied in the black-letter law of society. Teaching takes
the form of uttering or writing commandments, which the listener hears, mem-
orizes, and then passes along to others. That other possibilities are not explicitly
discussed in the literature indicates the degree to which such a view is assumed.
No other options seem worth mentioning, or even possible. Sometimes, writers
suggest that rules are learned in a more subtle way, by observation of behavior.28
But given the way the Commandment conception is built into the more explicit
discussions, one presumes that the authors believe that rules picked up in this
more subtle way are nonetheless pithy linguistic items.

5. rule following. The Commandment conception of rule following has it
that one hears the commandment, memorizes it, and then applies it to particular
situations. Mill implicitly assumes this view in the following passage: “for
the customary morality, that which education and opinion have consecrated,
is the only one which presents itself to the mind with the feeling of being in
itself obligatory. . . . [The moral agent] says to himself, I feel that I am bound
not to rob or murder, betray or deceive.”29 Apparently, Mill believes that the
agent applies rules by entertaining them occurrently. From the statements in the
previous section on pithiness, we know these rules are in the form of “Do not
rob” and the like. After calling up the brief statement internally, according to
                                Norm Utilitarianism                                  89

Mill, the agent then goes on to determine whether it covers a specific situation.
If it does, she acts accordingly.
    Austin’s remark regarding the pithiness of moral rules, which was quoted
earlier, also speaks to the manner in which these rules are applied. He writes:
The inferences suggested to our minds by repeated experience and observation are,
therefore, drawn into principles, or compressed into maxims. These we carry about us
ready for use, and apply to individual cases promptly or without hesitation: without
reverting to the process by which they were obtained; or without recalling, and arraying
before our minds, the numerous and intricate considerations of which they are handy

It is clear from this passage that Austin believes that we occurrently entertain
pithy phrases in order to see whether they apply to the situation at hand. He
also makes a connection between rule application and the property of pithiness.
Though it is not crystal clear from the passage, the idea seems to be that rules
can only be easily memorized and occurrently called up if they are “handy
    The three phases of rule functioning have now been examined. These, com-
bined with the Commandment conception of the structure of rules, constitute the
rule proponent’s overall view of the role rules play in utilitarian moral theory.31

                         B. The Shift to Ideal Rule Theory
Recall where the discussion broke off before the traditional or Commandment
conception of rules was examined. I had argued that utilitarianism must be sup-
plemented with the theory of norms. The rule proponent responded that this
is not necessary because rules can do all the work of norms and are already
present in utilitarian theory. But I was able to show that rules, as traditionally
understood, cannot do everything that norms can do. In particular, rules can-
not account for the complexity of the normative structure of the social world.
The rule proponent’s response was to claim that if we shift to the Ideal Rule
conception, then rules can do the job.
   The problem with this response is that the shift to ideal rules is not cost-
less for the rule proponent. If rules are to be complex items that exhaustively
characterize all the subtleties of the actual norms, then they cannot be pithy,
universally applicable, and few in number. As a result, they cannot be easily
formulated, transmitted, and applied, at any rate, not in the manner rule propo-
nents propound. For example, consider the norms regarding lying as they exist
in this culture. It would take a good deal of social scientific work to discover
the detailed contents of these norms, and the contents will vary from group to
group within the culture. Even if these norms can be fully captured by complex
ideal rules, surely they cannot be easily formulated in a pithy phrase, nor easily
transmitted or applied.32 This is not to say that it is impossible to provide some
90                the pattern conception of norms

other account of how these processes work, but whatever these processes are,
they are not the ones that utilitarians have proffered. Thus, for the rule proponent
to shift to ideal rules, she also will need to provide new accounts of the nature
of these rules and how they function. But these accounts will just be additions
to the incomplete theories we currently possess regarding the nature of norms
and how they function.
    The point of the detailed discussion of the traditional conception of rules in
the previous section is that it allows us to appreciate how much work needs to
be done to revamp this conception. In the rest of this section, I provide a sketch
of the needed Ideal Rule account.

1. nonpithiness. Ideal rules are a means of capturing the complexity of
actual norms. Thus, they must contain the subtle exceptions and fine discrimi-
nations that characterize real norms. Consider for example the incest taboo. At a
quick glance, it seems to proscribe only sexual intercourse within the immediate
family. But actually it is more complex, governing not only the immediate fam-
ily but the extended one, and not only intercourse, but also flirtation, physical
contact, inappropriate discourse, and so on. Such complex normative content
cannot be adequately described by a pithy, linguistic phrase such as, Incest is

2. nonuniversality. If ideal rules are to capture all of a norm’s content,
they must be very specific, making them inapplicable to all agents. For example,
the Soliz family’s norms discussed earlier are not captured by a society-wide
ethical creed, yet they surely generate utility. The same holds for the incest
taboo: its deep content is specific to particular subcultures.

3. large numbers of rules. The set of rules cannot be small if it is to
describe our normative reality adequately. Large societies contain millions of
people whose interactions are governed by countless different norms. Their
numbers are so great that they could never be compiled into a list that could be
used as an ethical creed, or social moral code.

4. ideal rule formation. As discussed earlier, the standard utilitarian
conception of rule formation involves both idiosyncratic and common models.
On each model, rules are explicitly formulated. But this will not work for ideal
rules. It is implausible to suppose that a rule created by an agent, either for her
to follow, or to disseminate to the public, will be complex enough to be the
Ideal Rule that should accompany a norm.
   The Ideal Rule as it actually is constituted must reflect many of the contin-
gencies of the world that could not be accurately predicted by a rule creator at the
start. Consider an architect’s blueprint. No matter how much effort goes into cre-
ating it, contingencies may arise during construction that call for modification
                              Norm Utilitarianism                                91

of the original plan. The same holds for norms (and consequently for the Ideal
Rules that overlay them). The difference is that norms, of course, are generally
not designed.
    Rather than being explicitly formulated, many norms emerge spontaneously
as the result of processes not yet well understood.33 Bernard Mandeville and the
Scottish Enlightenment philosophers – David Hume, Adam Smith, and Adam
Ferguson – all contributed to the development of so-called invisible hand expla-
nations for the emergence of functional social features such as norms.34 Norms
function so well that it looks as if they could only be the result of intentional
design. Yet, they are perhaps best explained as resulting unintentionally from
other social processes.
    The scant literature that currently exists in the social sciences regarding the
emergence of norms is the most relevant.35 Yet there are problems in fitting this
literature to utilitarians’ needs. Utilitarians generally believe people are capable
of some degree of unselfish behavior, an assumption captured in the common
and idiosyncratic models. In the common model, the assumption appears to
be that if we can just discover and promote the optimal set of rules, agents
will follow them. In the idiosyncratic model, agents are motivated on their own
to search for utility-maximizing rules. What is assumed is that agents want
to discover utility-maximizing rules. But the emergence models in the social
sciences assume narrow self-interest. How these models can be connected to
utilitarians’ needs has yet to be investigated adequately.

5. ideal rule transmission. On the traditional utilitarian account, rules
are transmitted through teaching or command, either verbal or written. Even
when the rule is transmitted by observation, what is observed is a pattern that
implies a pithy, linguistic item. But if the utilitarian wants to become an Ideal
Rule proponent, this model must be changed. Clearly, complex rules with many
clauses are not what is transmitted verbally or in writing. Once again, though it
is presumably possible to account for how such complex rules are transmitted,
utilitarians have not done so.
    Norms often are transmitted by observation, then imitation. The pithy, lin-
guistic item that is communicated verbally does not carry the full content of the
norm but rather serves to denote the thick pattern of behavior. In other words,
we use verbal and written rules to point to the norm. The receiver must be in a
position to see what the norm is; she cannot comprehend its full complexity in
the propositional content of the linguistic rule. This difference is subtle but can
be understood by contrasting the following two cases.
    Consider a father who wants to send his daughter to the store by a route
that she does not know. He writes directions for her on a piece of paper. The
propositional content of the directions must contain all the information that is
needed to get her to the store, for there is no other source available. But working
norms function differently. For example, one occasionally hears the general
92                the pattern conception of norms

incest taboo explicitly stated, and as a child one may have heard more specific
exhortations from parents. But this is not enough. One learns the appropriate
behavior in all its subtlety from observation. In this way, normative culture is
passed on largely through observation and imitation, not through words. The
pithy statement is used to denote the pattern of behavior. Perhaps the Ideal
Rule utilitarian can provide a similar account, by arguing that the explicit or
unwritten rule serves to denote the Ideal Rule.36

6. ideal rule following. As we saw earlier, in the utilitarians’ account
of rule following the agent internalizes a pithy, linguistic item that takes the
form of a generalized prescription, and then she applies it to particular cases.
But if the rule proponent is to promote the Ideal Rule view, this account will not
do. For complex ideal rules cannot be easily memorized and quickly called up.
Nor does it appear that such a process is necessary if we consider the example
of norm following. Conformity to norms is best understood as perceiving what
the norm requires in particular situations. What is at issue here is a certain kind
of objectivity. Extant norms and what they demand in particular circumstances
can be seen or observed in a straightforward sense. Norms may become sec-
ond nature so that one may follow them with little conscious effort. It is clear
that explicit rules are not a necessary part of this process as prelinguistic chil-
dren, as well as animals, are capable of the normative learning necessary for
conformative behavior.37
    The preceding six subsections on ideal rules represent the start on the path
that the rule proponent must follow if she is to become an Ideal Rule proponent.
We see that by suitably modifying her account, the rule proponent may be able
to save the rule view. But an insurmountable problem arises when the utilitarian
moves from advocating rules to advocating ideal rules. Recall that the reason for
showing that rules are the tail that wags the dog is to rebut the second premise
of the Supplementary Thesis, which claims that utilitarians have neglected the
study of norms. The response was to say that this is false because norms have
already been incorporated into utilitarian theory as the causal fallout of rules,
which, of course, are already part of utilitarians’ theoretical repetoire. But as
we just saw, to move from the rule to the Ideal Rule view, the utilitarian must
do much new theorizing to establish accounts of ideal rule formation, transmis-
sion and following and to eliminate the features of pithiness, universality, and
existence in a small set.
    These new demands on the utilitarian are parallel to those I made on the
rule theorist in the social sciences in Chapter One: better accounts of norm
formation, transmission, and following and a general characterization of the
nature of norms. What is crucial is that given this need for new theorizing, the
second premise of the Supplementary Thesis is true because, whether called
norms or rules, they have been neglected. Thus, we see that the second premise
is maintained regardless of which of the two possible moves the utilitarian
                              Norm Utilitarianism                               93

makes. Either she maintains the standard rule view and misses the subtleties
of norms, thereby neglecting them, or she moves to the Ideal Rule view, in
which case much new theorizing is needed to spell out how such ideal rules
work. But developing an account of ideal rules is tantamount to developing
an account of norms. Thus the second premise is affirmed: norms have been
neglected. Combining it with the first premise, we arrive at the Supplementary
Thesis, which states that utilitarianism must be supplemented with the theory
of norms.
    Having seen how much work is involved in the shift from the rule view
to the Ideal Rule view, we may wonder why it is worthwhile to call the new
account a rule view at all. Since the account will completely overlap the theory
of norms, why not use the term norm view and reserve the term rule view for the
distinct theory that already exists? Utilitarians must admit that if a completely
new account of rules and their function is needed, then the previous theory has
been gutted. What reason could there be to hold onto the name of the old theory,
other than to save the old theory in name?
    An objection could be raised that I have been unfair to utilitarians. It might
be claimed that they did not mean to talk about all rules, only moral rules. Thus
I cannot legitimately take them to be talking about all norms, only moral norms.
And they may argue that their analyses of these are adequate.
    My response works on two levels. First, it is insignificant that they did not
mean to talk about all rules. By their own lights, they should be interested in all
rules, to the extent that these are important generators of utility. Consider the
utility generated by having norms regulating how we communicate, walk, and
so on. These have an important impact on utility and so should be of interest.
But even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that utilitarians are not to
be faulted for focusing exclusively on moral rules, their conception of moral
rules is also inadequate. The Commandment conception is inadequate even to
the task of capturing the complexities of moral rules, as will be seen next.
    What I have developed so far is still a live-and-let-live thesis. We need
norm theory, but we still have rule theory, which has only been impugned to
the extent that it purports to explain the entire realm of patterned, normative
activity. Rule theory is founded on the very plausible claim that rules understood
as commandments improve utility production. Surely utilitarians can make a
good argument for this position.
    Take the Ten Commandments. These are rules that were formulated and
now are transmitted and followed just as utilitarians suppose. The expert model
provides the best characterization of their historical formulation (an understate-
ment of sorts). They are transmitted through the written and spoken word by
pithy, linguistic statements. And arguably, once internalized, they are retrieved
and applied to particular cases and are followed. Such a procedure would seem
to generate more utility than were each agent to make her own calculations for
each decision. Hence, rules are plausibly seen as utility generators. Apparently
94                 the pattern conception of norms

then norms and rules are distinct utility generators. The question that naturally
arises is: Which of the two is more important for utility?
    There is a measurement problem, however, in trying to determine whether
norms or rules are more important to utilitarianism. How are we to measure the
constellation of norms’ causal impact on utility compared to that of rules? The
norm proponent has an argument for her account, however, that vitiates the need
for the complex measurement. She claims that the rule proponent was illicitly
trading on norms throughout her argument for the causal significance of rules.
    Consider how the norm proponent can argue for this priority of norms over
rules. As a simple example, consider the rule, Do not lie. If people literally fol-
lowed this rule, much less utility and perhaps net disutility might be produced in
comparison to the more complex norm that is actually followed. On the surface,
it looks as if the pithy rule is transmitted and followed. But given the forego-
ing discussion, a more plausible explanation is that when one hears the rule,
Do not lie, one looks to one’s community or group to better understand what
the speaker means. This process determines how one should act. Simply put,
the actual behavioral norms instantiated in the community are acting as a guide.
Thus, it is not the rule but the norm that smooths the way for the flow of utility.
Norms remain hidden beneath rules, but they are doing the lion’s share of the
work in generating utility.
    Given the preceding discussion, it appears that norms should replace rules as
the linchpin of practical behavior for the utilitarian, that is, the utilitarian should
ask not which rules should be followed, but which norms. In asmuch as con-
sequences matter in nearly all moral theories, this point will be of significance
more generally. Good consequences matter morally, and so the best means to
obtaining them also matters morally. It was correct to look to rules as having
an important role in the production of good consequences; it was incorrect to
assign them the crucial role. For once norms are introduced, we see that they
are the social structure that undergirds the rule, performing the real work. Of-
ten, rules are a part of norms and perhaps multivariate analysis could indicate
the extent of the impact that rules as such have on consequences. But rules,
understood as they are described in the literature as pithy, linguistic items, are
only one component in the more complex structure that produces utility.

As stated in the book’s introduction, the moral-theoretic analysis will be layered
on top of the rational choice analysis. From the angle of this distinction, this
chapter and the last are transition chapters. Each serves to erect conceptual
bridges between rationality and morality. The present chapter continued with the
moral motivational assumption of narrow self-interest. Moral analysis comes in
from the perspective of critical moral theory. Utilitarian critical moral theorists
can judge the moral bona fides of a community or society regardless of the
                             Norm Utilitarianism                              95

particular motivational assumption that is made regarding the population of
actors. Note that there is consistency in the moral analysis and the rational
analysis because the moral analysis does not take odds with the Hobbesian
motivational assumption at the core of rational choice analysis. In the next
chapter, a degree of genuinely moral motivation will be layered onto the account,
although Hobbesian motivation will continue to play an important role.
                   Emergent Moral Norms

   To some philosophers the notion that moral phenomena – rights and duties or
   obligations – can be brought into existence by the voluntary action of individuals
   has appeared utterly mysterious; but this I think has been so because they have
   not clearly seen how special the moral notions of a right and an obligation are,
   nor how peculiarly they are connected with the distribution of freedom of choice;
   it would indeed be mysterious if we could make actions morally good or bad by
   voluntary choice.1
                                                                       H. L. A. Hart

Chapters Two and Three discussed rational norms, which are norms conformed
to by rational actors. Moral norms, by contrast, are norms conformed to by
moral actors. Economists and game theorists typically assume that people are
rational actors and moral theorists and sociologists typically assume that people
are moral actors. While neither assumption is fully realistic, each can be useful
and lead to interesting results.
    Starting with a rational choice account is in keeping with the dominant
thrust of the literature out of which the previous discussion grew, for generally
the rational choice or economic approach has been the dominant framework
theorists have applied to analyze the structure of norms. The narrow self-interest
account is flawed, however, because it fails to account for the strong evidence
of the reality of genuine moral motivation in the workings of social practices.
Accepting the reality and potency of moral motivation does not, however, mean
one must see these influences as dominant. The most interesting results come
from combining the assumptions of rational and moral motivation.
    Chapter Two demonstrated that rational actors would find themselves in a
world consisting of three types of norms, conformity to each of which having
been shown to be fully consistent with the dictates of methodological individ-
ualism, a grounding tenet of rational choice theory. Any theory of moral norms
must overcome a similar hurdle if it is to get off the ground, for just as the notion
                            Emergent Moral Norms                               97

of conformity must be reconciled to the notion of rational action, so too must
it be reconciled to the notion of moral action, for while rational choice theo-
rists and moral theorists disagree about the basic goodness of humanity, they
do agree that people are purposeful, willful actors. The notion of purposeful,
willful behavior seems inherently in tension with the notion of conformitive
    In moral theory, before anything else, people are choosers. To act morally is
to choose freely an action in circumstances in which one is morally motivated
and one sees the action as required by morality. This general description is true
on the Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theory approaches. Certainly, conformity
is not one of moral theory’s most cherished notions. Instead, one thinks of such
concepts as goodness, rightness, justice, liberty, or fairness. Conformity is sus-
pect; one might easily suppose that conformers are not really moral at all, they
are just conforming. If this apparent incompatibility cannot be resolved, moral
theorists may have to conclude that so-called moral norms are out of bounds,
such that truly moral individuals cannot participate in norms to reap their ben-
efits as conformity does not satisfy minimal standards of moral deliberation.
    Some accounts try to make conformity more understandable by emphasizing
the role of sanctions; conformity to norms is justified because the forces of so-
cialization carry sanctions for defection. In this scenario, we are all conformers
because we are all sanctioners. But this merely pushes the issue of blind con-
formity one step back, which solves nothing, as blind sanctioning is antithetical
to any moral theory that comes to mind, whether it be one of various critical
moral theories or ordinary morality.
    Social theorists who reject the rational choice tradition have an interest in
seeing the problem of moral conformity resolved. Their strategy for rebuking
economists has been to point to the existence of moral norms as evidence of
peoples’ non-egoistic motivation.2 But if the problem of moral norms cannot be
resolved, this strategy against the economists will not work. Moral theorists and
sociologists will not be able to use moral norms as evidence of moral motivation
if they cannot explain how moral motivation genuinely may lead to the acts
of conformity necessary for norms. Without such an account, their cherished
norms will appear to be pseudo-moral, patterns of behavior maintained by a
kind of pale, lifeless conformity. Both for moral theory and the social sciences,
then, it is important to determine whether conformity can be reconciled with
    Whereas there is arguably only one type of rational motivation, there are
a variety of types of moral motivation. What counts as moral motivation is
of course a matter of controversy. It is not the concern of the present work
to determine the true or best account of morality, and then, derivatively, to
determine which are the true moral norms. Instead, I will use the term morality
broadly so as to include morality as conceived by a variety of moral theories
and as instantiated in a variety of cultures and subcultures. On this purely
98                the pattern conception of norms

descriptive use, moralities that are little more than manifestations of group self-
interest will count as moral, as long as they cannot be completely reduced to
narrow self interest.4 This broad conception of morality and moral motivation
will mean a broad conception of what counts as a moral norm.5 In the following
discussion, the moral account will be layered on top of the rational account.
The concept of predominant egoism creates a consistency between these two
accounts. Finally, the next chapter will be solely concerned with norms made up
of the conforming actions of moral actors who share a moral outlook. Modeling
norms in this manner will be of interest because we will see that participation
in norms is consistent with the grounding principles of leading critical moral
    First, however, the present chapter will consider how norms are structured in
the real world, not the theoretical world populated by ideally rational or ideally
moral people, but instead the world we live in, where people are predominantly,
albeit not completely, self-interested. The law evolved over many hundreds of
years in a manner so as to reflect the moral complexion of the society out of
which it grew. The best interpretation of the customs and practices that have
played a role in the law must pay serious attention to the moral currents running
through the culture out of which the law grew.

                            I. Predominant Egoism
Predominant egoism is the social scientific claim that people are character-
istically mostly narrowly self-interested in their behavior. There is a world
of difference between being mostly self-regarding and being completely self-
regarding. This is the world of morality; not the ideal, well-scrubbed morality
of moral theory, but the ordinary morality of people as they actually live out
their lives.6 SD norms, coordination norms, and epistemic norms may all reflect
the fact that they are made up of the conforming actions of predominant egoists,
rather than the pure egoists of standard economic analysis or the highly morally
motivated persons of critical moral theory.
    There is fundamental disagreement across the various disciplines about the
nature of human motivation. Olson, Barry, Williamson, and Ellickson all draw
the fundamental divide as between economists and sociologists.7 These cat-
egories can readily be expanded to lump rational choice theorists with the
economists, and moral theorists, learning theorists, and cultural anthropolo-
gists with the sociologists.
    Roughly, the issue comes down to whether or not one accepts the fairly pes-
simistic assumption about human nature as captured in the idea of economic
man, or Homo economicus. Most economists and game theorists accept the as-
sumption and most other social theorists do not. This apparent divide between
the disciplines presents a problem for the further development of interdisci-
plinary theory, for it would seem that a theory must come down on one side or
                             Emergent Moral Norms                                  99

            Rational Behavior                       Moral Behavior

          Irrational Behavior                       Immoral Behavior
               Figure 4.1 Fundamental Categories of Human Behavior

another of this divide, and hence appear automatically unacceptable to those on
the other side, as beginning from a faulty core assumption. Fortunately, how-
ever, we will see that the divide is neither as deep nor as unbridgeable as is
often thought.
    It will be helpful at this point to schematize human motivation. Figure 4.1
displays the most relevant breakdown of human behavior.8
    It is common for theorists to speak as if human motivation lies somewhere
on the continuum between the narrowly rational and the moral. A more compre-
hensive account, however, must come to terms with irrationality and immorality
as motivational types as well. The question arises as to whether it is ultimately
most fruitful to see these as distinct types of motivation, or rather as mere fail-
ures to live up to the demands of rationality and morality. This complex issue
cannot be settled here, so as an expository device, irrationality and immorality
will be treated as separate categories from rationality and morality.
    It is often said that economists and rational choice theorists have a cyni-
cal or pessimistic view of human nature, as their accounts emphasize peoples’
self-interested nature. This chart shows that while economists may indeed be
pessimistic along one dimension, along another dimension they are optimistic,
as these theorists think that people are highly rational rather than somewhere
on the continuum between the rational and the irrational.9 Recently, however,
psychologists such as Amos Tversky have provided accounts of irrational ten-
dencies that seem more like modifications of the rational choice approach than
outright rejections.10 This type of work continues to make inroads, such that it
perhaps can be said that many rational choice theorists now see human moti-
vation as somewhere on the continuum between the rational and the irrational,
though decidedly near the rational end.
    The issue of immorality occupies a similar, ambiguous position in moral
theory. Moral theorists tend to pay little attention to immorality per se, as distinct
from self interest. There are notable exceptions, such as those writers who have
tried to come to terms with evil.11 But, starting with Plato, the dominant tradition
has been to conceive of morality as fundamentally threatened by narrow self-
interest rather than immorality. We see then that both moral theorists and rational
choice theorists have tended to view the wellsprings of human motivation as
100               the pattern conception of norms

lying somewhere along the top of the graph on the continuum between the
rational and the moral.
    The most extreme rationalist position holds that all behavior is narrowly
rational. Because this is sometimes thought to have been Hobbes’s posi-
tion, I will refer to holders of this view as Hobbesians.12 These theorists
characteristically offer accounts of how patterns of behavior that seem to be
moral on their face really result from the subtle machinations of enlightened
self-interest. Impressionistic evidence strongly suggests, however, that few ra-
tional choice theorists who explicitly discuss the matter defend this extreme
    The assumption that people are narrowly self-interested must be distin-
guished from the assumption that people are instrumentally rational, which is a
weaker assumption. Economists and other rational choice theorists sometimes
say that all they are committed to is the assumption that people seek to maxi-
mize their utility function, where this may include the interests of others. This
concession is made in principle; nevertheless, these theorists evidently think
other-regarding behavior is marginal in the real world as economists continue
to provide self-interested explanations of seemingly morally infused practices
such as voting, tipping, and giving to public radio. (Without the Hobbesian
starting point there would be no need for reinterpretations of these practices
because the people involved would be seen as merely behaving according to
a utility function that incorporated the interests of others, the fellow citizens,
waitpersons, and radio listeners.)13
    Another group of rational choice theorists, while also delighting in debunk-
ing conventional understandings of many practices, nevertheless are willing to
grant the real though limited existence of genuinely moral motivation.14 Typi-
cally, these theorists appear to think that although morality cannot be entirely
forgotten, it is, nevertheless, marginal so that, for most purposes, straightforward
rational choice analysis is still the best approach. This position is historically
best associated with Hume, who took a view of the world that gave pride of
place to narrowly rational motivation, but who also thought that natural human
sympathy could be a source of genuinely other-regarding behavior.15 I will
refer to holders of this view as Humeans.
    Moral motivation has typically been incorporated into rational actor models
in two manners. One is to model behavior in terms of narrow self-interest, and
then, as an addendum, to mention morality in one form or another. The other is
to incorporate moral motivation more directly, as, for example, by constructing
payout matrices that assume a mixed population of actors, some of whom are
moral and some of whom are narrowly rational, or a uniform population of
actors who have a mixture of moral and narrowly rational motives. The first
approach is more common.
    As representatives of the first approach, Barry and Hardin argue, for example,
that it is best for methodological reasons to do analysis in terms of narrow
                             Emergent Moral Norms                              101

self-interest. They maintain, however, that human behavior is, in fact, more
    In the camp of those who incorporate moral motivation more explicitly,
Howard Margolis develops an approach whereby people are best understood as
having two utility functions, one rational and the other altruistic.17 This model
is a more sophisticated version of one first offered by John Harsanyi.18 Margolis
tries to model what he refers to as, “the feeling of psychological equilibrium
associated with the fair-share notion.”19 He says this can be intuitively captured
in the so-called FS allocation rule, which Margolis characterizes in the following
manner: “The larger the share of my resources I have spent unselfishly, the more
weight I give to my selfish interests in allocating marginal resources. On the
other hand, the larger benefit I can confer on the group compared with the
benefit from spending marginal resources on myself, the more I will tend to
act unselfishly.”20 Margolis is here making a social scientific claim about an
aspect of ordinary morality, specifically that people are more or less altruistic
depending on the amount of impersonal good they have done in the past, and
on the relative degree of benefit they can do for others versus the relative cost
to themselves. Margolis is not specific as to the absolute amount of moral
motivation that is characteristically present, yet, between the lines, he appears
more bullish than Harsanyi, who claims that the “impersonal attitude” necessary
for altruistic behavior appears only in “rare moments.”21
    Gregory Kavka argues for a position he calls “predominant egoism.”22 Like
Margolis, Kavka is explicit in his attempt to incorporate moral motivation into
a predominantly economic model. Kavka conceives of his position as a mod-
ification of the strong Hobbesian view but still in the Hobbesian tradition of
holding a fairly pessimistic view of human nature.23 Kavka sees predominant
egoism as the conjunction of the following four propositions:
1. For most people in most situations, the “altruistic gain/personal loss” ratio
   needed to reliably motivate self-sacrificing action is large.
2. The number of people for whom altruism and other non-self-interested mo-
   tives normally override self-interested motives is small.
3. The number of situations, for the average person, in which non-self-interested
   motives override personal interest is small.
4. The scope of altruistic motives that are strong enough to normally override
   self-interest is, for most people, small, that is, confined to concern for family,
   close friends, close associates, or particular groups or public projects to
   which the individual is devoted.24
Notice that with Proposition 1 in particular, Kavka offers a kind of proportion-
ality principle of the sort Margolis discusses. The intuitive idea is that people
are more inclined to do good when they can get the most altruistic benefit for
their dollar. Kavka appears to leave the door open for other moral notions when
he mentions, “other non-self-interested motives,” in proposition 2, but he never
102               the pattern conception of norms

spells out what he has in mind here. Rather, the proportionality principle is
    There has been little discussion in the literature as to whether the Margolis/
Kavka approach is better than the pure Hobbesian approach. While this is
an important issue to explore, the answer need not be determined here. It is
significant to note that the Margolis/Kavka approach does not in any way on
its face assume a greater degree of moral motivation as a ratio of all behavior
than the Barry/Hardin approach. Both Kavka and Margolis think that the lion’s
share of behavior is motivated by narrowly self-interested reasons.
    For all these theorists have told us, then, there is no reason to think there is
more at issue than various attempts to best model or describe a state of affairs
that all basically agree on. In a nutshell, all these theorists hold that human
behavior is for the most part, though not totally, self-regarding or narrowly
self-interested. These views are nevertheless usefully contrasted with those of
Harsanyi who thinks that non-egoistic behavior is rare. It is probably fair to
say that most theorists tend more toward one version or another of predomi-
nant egoism as compared to the narrow Hobbesian position, if only implicitly.
The predominant egoist position is more reasonable and realistic on its face
than the strong Hobbesian position. It is also more compatible with the sorts
of positions taken by those who do not accept rational choice theory because
many moral theorists readily acknowledge and incorporate into their writings
the potency of the human impulse toward narrowly self-interested behavior.25
With rare exceptions, however, moral theorists do not hold the Hobbesian start-
ing point to be most accurate as a matter of social science. But it is probably
fair to say that moral theorists as a group tend to have a stereotype of ratio-
nal choice theorists as more toward the strong egoist or Hobbesian position
than, in fact, appears to be the case. The preceding discussion shows that
the various widely held positions may be closer on the continuum between
purely moral motivation and narrowly rational motivation than is commonly
    The previous section established the plausibility of adopting predominant
egoism as a starting point for explanatory social theory. A full-scale examination
of the moral impulses that interact with rational impulses is beyond the scope of
the present project. Of interest here are those moral impulses that play a special
role in the story of norms and customs. With a couple of important exceptions,
this topic has failed to receive the attention in the literature that it deserves. It
turns out that the morality of participation in practices is more complex than
the simple proportionality principle of rational versus moral motivation offered
by Margolis and Kavka. The moral relationships that emerge from practices
will be seen to vary in their thick content depending on the structure of the
underlying practice, that is, depending on whether the practice is an SD norm,
a coordination norm, or an epistemic norm. Section I of the chapter explores
                               Emergent Moral Norms                                   103

the most important of these emergent moral relationships. Parts Two and Three
of the book examine some of the most important emergent moral relationships
that have appeared in a legal context.

             II. Practice-Driven Emergent Moral Relationships
The following account will focus on three central moral impulses that emerge
out of the interactions of groups of norm conformers. The first is a principle or
duty that may arise in interactions that have the strategic structure of n-person
Prisoner’s Dilemmas. The second and third principles arise in interactions that
have the strategic structure of coordination norms. To all appearances, these
emergent moral principles are sui generis. There may also be other moral im-
pulses that emerge, but the account presented here will focus on the core three
only, rather than attempt to provide an exhaustive account. The most important
point is to understand the process whereby these moral impulses emerge from
the interactions of norm conformers. This will facilitate a better understanding
of parallel processes whereby moral impulses may emerge in more explicitly
legal settings, as will be discussed in Parts Two and Three.

           A. Lewis and Ullman-Margalit on Conventions as Norms
It will be of interest to begin with a look at the normative arguments of Lewis
and Ullman-Margalit. Both Lewis and Ullmann-Margalit think conventions
may become norms. Lewis makes the following claim: “Conventions may be
a species of norms: regularities to which we believe one ought to conform. I
shall argue that they are.” Lewis then lists a series of five propositions, which
follow from the definition of a convention. From the five, the following two
are implied: “(6) I have reason to believe that my conforming would answer to
my own preferences. (7) I have reason to believe that my conforming would
answer to the preferences of most other members of P involved with me in
S; and that they have reason to expect me to conform.”26 Lewis makes the
following remarks regarding these two propositions:
(6) and (7), when true, are presumptive reasons why I ought to conform. For we may
presume, other things being equal, that one ought to do what answers to his own prefer-
ences. And we presume, other things being equal, that one ought to do what answers to
others’ preferences, especially when they may reasonably expect one to do so. For any
action conforming to any convention, we would recognize these two (probable and pre-
sumptive) reasons why it ought to be done. . . . This is what I mean by calling conventions
a species of norms.27

   We see that on Lewis’s account, conventions may be said to be norms in two
different ways. In short, conventions are norms because they provide one with a
104                 the pattern conception of norms

rational reason why one ought to conform, and because they provide one with
a moral reason why one ought to conform. Though Lewis says no more to clarify
what background theory he thinks might justify the claim that such situations
provide one with moral reasons, his comments lend themselves to a broadly
utilitarian reading, as the preferences of others appear to be what matters. Yet
he also refers to the fact that others will have reasonable expectations, which
sounds like an appeal to fairness.
    Ullmann-Margalit takes a similar approach to that of Lewis. She observes that
the nature of recurrent coordination problems is such that conforming actions
satisfy the preferences of the actor, as well as the expectations and preferences
of the others involved.28 In such situations, she claims, the expectations will
become “deontic.”
    Ullmann-Margalit writes: “Where a coordination problem is recurrent, and
where there emerges a regularity which solves it, and where there is room for
speaking of precedents, these expectations tend rapidly to assume the character
of deontic ones; i.e. to be more than mere predictions: to constitute mutual
demands.”29 Ullmann-Margalit goes on to make the following remarks in which
she, like Lewis, makes her one moral claim of the book:30

The claim that expectations upholding regularities tend to become deontic is, as such,
an empirical generalization. But conjoin it to the previous point made, namely that an
action in conformity with a regularity which solves a recurrent coordination problem is
one that gratifies both the actor’s and the other participants’ interests, and you will have
an independent justification why this will be so.31

In this passage, Ullmann-Margalit is apparently claiming that these expectations
become deontic, and that it is right or morally correct that they should.
    Both writers think it natural that sanctions and prescriptions will arise in the
sorts of circumstances outlined here. Both Lewis and Ullmann-Margalit make
the claim that the members of the group will exact moral sanctions against
defectors. Lewis writes:

So if they see me fail to conform, not only have I gone against their expectations; they
will probably be in a position to infer that I have knowingly acted contrary to my own
preferences and their reasonable expectations. They will be surprised, and they will
tend to explain my conduct discreditably. The poor opinions they form of me, and their
reproaches, punishment, and distrust are the unfavorable responses I have evoked by my
failure to conform to the convention.32

   Ullmann-Margalit makes similar comments regarding sanctions.33 Unlike
Lewis, who does not discuss prescriptions,34 Ullmann-Margalit provides a fairly
lengthy discussion. She provides three benefits that accrue when a regularity
takes on the status of an explicitly prescribed norm. The first benefit is that if
the norm is explicitly prescribed, newcomers to the group will not threaten its
                             Emergent Moral Norms                               105

regularity. The problem, as she sees it, is that current members will be able to
follow regularities, but newcomers may not see them unless told.35 Second, and
relatedly, is the problem that a past regularity might be characterized by several
different unique descriptions, which might all agree on the past instances but
diverge on some future instance. An explicit norm, Ullmann-Margalit claims,
may solve this problem, as it provides a “unique fitting description” of the reg-
ularity, “which provides unique guidance” in future cases.36 Third, she remarks
that norms have a higher degree of articulation and explicitness than mere regu-
larities. Thus, they offer the safest solution to coordination problems.37 We see
that according to Lewis and Ullmann-Margalit, the reason why nonconform-
ers will be sanctioned and have conformity prescribed is that the conformers
prefer that the others conform, and it is in their interest that conformity be
    But, as we saw in some of the examples of coordination norms examined in
Chapter Two, conformers do not always prefer that the nonconformers conform.
In the case of the conforming lawyer, the others actually prefer that the individual
not conform. In many other cases, rational actors will be indifferent, as we saw
in the example of wearing a suit. Given that most others act in certain ways, it
will behoove one to do so as well. But others are neither harmed nor benefited
by one’s conformity. As we saw, it is deceptive to focus on the example of
driving. For this is indeed a norm in which others are harmed by an individual’s
nonconformity. But with many social customs and traditions, this is not the case.
If others fail to conform, they will stand out as being atypical, but their behavior,
as such, is harmless. Thus, there will be no reason to prescribe conformity or
punish defectors.38 And this is in line with what we observe. For typically, one
is not punished by others for failing to dress in a conventional manner, which
would be in one’s self-interest, in the same way that one is punished for acts of
nonconformity, which are harmful to others, such as driving on the wrong side
of the road.
    In what sense then are these patterns of behavior norms? They are norms
on my definition because they are rationally governed patterns of behavior,
motivated by conformity that produces benefits. In the cases just discussed,
the benefit of my coordinating only accrues to me and thus the others have no
reason to sanction and prescribe because they do not have a potential to either
benefit or suffer from doing so.
    Sanctions and prescriptions may be forthcoming, however, from those who
take an interest in one’s welfare. Thus, parents sanction and prescribe behavior
to make their children conform to prevalent coordination norms. But this is
because they take an interest in the child’s achievement of the coordination
benefit. Another source may be those close to one whose welfare is a function
of one’s welfare. So for example a spouse may prescribe and sanction to induce
conformity to prevalent coordination norms so that the other spouse may do
106                 the pattern conception of norms

better, so that the first spouse will indirectly do better. But this is consistent
with it being the case by and large that people are indifferent. We see then that
though sanctions and prescriptions may be present in the case of coordination
norms, they need not be. This is precisely why we should not build them into
the definition of norms.

      B. Reciprocity and Fairness Relations as Created by Participation
                         in PD Norms and Customs
When one benefits from an SD norm, one may incur obligations to reciprocate
participation in order that other members of the group may also benefit. This
basic moral intuition has been debated, though in a different context than here,
by some of the century’s foremost normative theorists. The so-called fairness
argument was first developed by H.L.A. Hart, then amended by John Rawls, and
attacked by Robert Nozick.39 These theorists explored the fairness intuition in
the context of political obligation. The focus here is on whether informal norms
and customs may engender similar fairness obligations. Nevertheless, it will
be useful to begin by seeing how the parallel intuition has been handled in the
literature on political obligation. Some of the more controversial features of the
fairness argument for political obligation are less troublesome in the context of
informal norms.
    As Hart sees it, obligations may emerge among persons taking part in co-
operative social endeavors, or as Hart calls them, “joint enterprise[s] according
to rules.” Such participation may bring into existence “special rights” of the
participants who submit to the scheme to receive a similar submission from
those participants who have benefited.40 Hart writes:

A third very important source of special rights and obligations which we recognize in
many spheres of life is what may be termed mutuality of restrictions, and I think political
obligation is intelligible only if we see what precisely this is and how it differs from
the other right-creating transactions (consent, promising) to which philosophers have
assimilated it. In its bare schematic outline it is this: when a number of persons conduct
any joint enterprise according to rules and thus restrict their liberty, those who have
submitted to these restrictions when required have a right to a similar submission from
those who have benefited by their submission.41

   This brief account is Hart’s main statement of his argument for how a practice
can create rights and obligations. The basic idea is that a person may take on
obligations to contribute to a joint enterprise out of fairness, simply due to
benefiting from the arrangement. With this duty is the correlative right that
each of the contributors has that one submit. Crucially, Hart’s account seeks
to bypass consent as a requirement for the incursion of the obligation, while
maintaining a requirement of voluntary participation in the joint enterprise. This
distinguishes his approach from a contractarian account, which would require
                               Emergent Moral Norms                                   107

consent as a basis of obligation. A theory of political obligation that avoided
consent as a requirement would avoid the difficulty that all contract theorists
face, namely, spelling out a notion of consent that makes it more than a fiction
of one sort or another.42
   Though Hart does not mention the free-rider problem, per se, it is implicit
in his discussion of the special obligation that emerges among beneficiaries to
submit themselves to the restrictions needed to maintain the joint enterprise.
These restrictions would not be necessary if people did not consider conformity
onerous, and prefer instead to defect. Broadly speaking, the idea seems to be that
many elements of society can be viewed as having the structure of a collective
action problem; there are mutual benefits to be had if people cooperate in
joint enterprises, but there is a threat of free riding, as people would prefer to
be carried along by the efforts of others. Thus, writ large, it is the dominant
strategic structure of society and one’s relationship to it as a beneficiary that
may create an obligation.
   As Hart notes in the quoted passage, a special sort of obligation is most rel-
evant; political obligation. This argument asks us to think of the state provision
of goods as being similar to a cooperative venture that has the strategic struc-
ture of a collective action problem. Each prefers to free ride on the cooperative
efforts of others, and so it is only fair that if the good is to be made available
to all, that all should contribute, because it is only then that no one is able to
benefit for free while others contribute.
   It is by this means that the argument from political obligation leads to the
argument for political coercion. The argument at its essence is that state coercion
can be justified because the contributions are themselves only fair, since the
person who is compelled to make them is the beneficiary of collective goods
produced by the state, and since the contributions are fair and the only way to
get them is through coercion, the coercion is justified.
   Rawls picks up Hart’s argument and adds more detail and analysis, as well as
two labels: the “principle of fair play” and the “principle of fairness.”43 Rawls’
statement of the principle is even more evocative of the free rider problem.
He writes:

The principle of fair play may be defined as follows. Suppose there is a mutually benefi-
cial and just scheme of social cooperation, and that the advantages it yields can only be
obtained if everyone, or nearly everyone, cooperates. Suppose further that cooperation
requires a certain sacrifice from each person, or at least involves a certain restriction of
his liberty. Suppose finally that the benefits produced by cooperation are, up to a certain
point, free: that is, the scheme of cooperation is unstable in the sense that if any one
person knows that all (or nearly all) of the others will continue to do their part, he will
still be able to share a gain from the scheme even if he does not do his part. Under
these conditions a person who has accepted the benefits of the scheme is bound by a
duty of fair play to do his part and not to take advantage of the free benefits by not
108               the pattern conception of norms

The conditions Rawls gives here for the emergence of the fairness principle
are strikingly similar to those for a collective action problem or Prisoner’s
Dilemma; cooperation is a sacrifice and enough others are cooperating such
that one may be able to get away without cooperating, without threatening to
bring down the enterprise. These are the conditions in which we would expect
to see narrowly rational people attempting to free ride. In these conditions, the
duty of fairness requires that one should not defect from a mutually beneficial
pattern of behavior simply because it is in one’s self-interest to do so, if one has
already incurred benefits and so taken on obligations. Barry and Hardin refer
to this as the “anti-free-rider” principle.45
    Though Rawls’s position is very similar to Hart’s, there are differences.
Whereas Hart talked about a “joint enterprise,” Rawls talks about a “mutually
beneficial and just scheme of social cooperation.”46 For Hart, it appears to be
enough that a person benefits from the scheme (although some sort of voluntary
involvement is required), whereas, for Rawls, there must be an acceptance of
the benefits.47 In spite of these differences, the arguments are similar and may
be treated as one argument for present purposes. With the basics of the argument
on the table, we are ready to see how it applies, if at all, in the context of norms.
    First, note that concern with norms is a more limited issue than is the concern
with political obligation. Hart and Rawls are concerned with all public goods
provided by the state, which would include goods such as national defense.
Such a good is not the result of conformity to norms by some contributing
group. Rather, taxes are levied, and the money is then used to hire and train
specialists who provide the good.48
    The heart of the controversy over the fairness argument as applied to the
state has revolved around the issue of voluntariness. Both Hart and Rawls
want the participation in the scheme and the receipt of the benefits to be in
some appropriate sense voluntary. The controversy has been over whether a
plausible story can be told whereby the average citizen’s relation to goods
provided by the state is one of voluntary acceptance. Voluntariness seems a
fiction, however, because the state provides what it does regardless of what one
personally voluntarily does.49 This would not be an improvement over social
contract theory, then, as one argument based on an illicit fiction would be done
away with, only to be replaced by another.
    The important point for present purposes, however, is that what might make
for a dubious argument for state coercion may still make for an attractive ar-
gument for a type of special moral relationship that emerges among smaller
groups, like groups of conformers to a practice. What is striking is that con-
formity to practices sometimes contains the element of voluntariness that may
only be a fiction when it comes to the state. It can genuinely be said that one
voluntarily chooses to participate in some practices. Consequently, it may be
more broadly appealing to our ordinary moral intuition to claim that one ought
to contribute to the continuation of such practices if one is going to benefit
                             Emergent Moral Norms                              109

from them. Thus, some version of the fairness argument may have broader ap-
peal outside the context of the argument for political obligation. Consider the
following example.
    In the small town in northern Wisconsin where the author grew up it snows
often. People frequently become stuck in their automobiles. It is customary for
people who come along, and are capable of doing so, to render assistance. The
practice of rendering assistance to people stuck in the snow has the structure
of a collective action problem. The person interested in promoting her narrow
self-interest will want to receive help when she needs it but will also want to be
able to avoid assisting others when she comes upon them. In other words, she
would like to free ride on the practice. She is quite literally a free rider, as she
is able to drive away without troubling to render assistance.
    In this example, by the lights of local norms, the person who takes part in
the practice to the extent of accepting aid from others is bound out of fairness
to reciprocate when the occasion arises, if she is able bodied and no special
circumstances exist, such as that she is rushing her spouse or companion to the
hospital or that the stranded person appears dangerous. We see then that vol-
untary participation in practices that have the structure of an iterated collective
action problem can, by the lights of ordinary morality, create a special rela-
tionship such that one has a duty to reciprocate that one would not otherwise
have. Thus, the basic fairness or reciprocity intuition behind the Hart/Rawls
argument appears to be ensconced in ordinary morality, at least in situations in
which the participation is genuinely voluntary.
    In the language of deontology, the moral relationship created here is a duty or
obligation (these terms will be used interchangeably). What are the significant
features of duties of this sort? First, they are created by specific acts rather than
adhering to individuals simply in virtue of their moral personhood. They are
thus not general duties one has simply in virtue of being a person capable of
moral behavior interacting with persons deserving of moral treatment. Rather,
they are duties created out of participation in a practice.
    As Hart notes in the epigram that began this chapter, the notion that moral
relationships can be created by consent is mysterious to some.50 But they are
not created by consent in the way, for example, that promises create duties out
of consent. In the case of a practice such as the stuck-in-the-snow example,
one could be described as consenting to take part in the practice when one
accepts help when stuck in the snow and one knows that there is a practice
in place that requires reciprocal participation when the shoe is on the other
foot. But in so engaging the practice, one does not thereby consent to the
creation of an obligation to reciprocate out of fairness. The obligation, or so
the argument goes, arises regardless of one’s consent. It is when one allows
oneself to reap the benefits of the cooperative labors that constitute the practice
that one takes on a special relationship toward those who participate in the
110               the pattern conception of norms

    A distinction often appealed to, to distinguish different types of duties, is that
between positive and negative duties. Fairness of this sort would be a positive
duty, for negative duties are simply duties not to harm others, and in the snow-
pushing example, one has a more substantial duty than merely not to harm the
other person. Rather, one may have a positive duty to benefit them by getting
out and rendering assistance.
    Whether duties of this sort will count within a deontological theory will
depend on the theory. Different theories accept different sorts of duties. Perhaps
the most minimal is a theory that recognizes only negative duties. Such a theory
would not accept the fairness obligation as legitimate. It would say that you have
a duty not to run the person off the road as they stand waiting for assistance, but
there is no affirmative duty to stop and become involved, which after all may
mean becoming enmeshed knee deep in snow, pushing while the back wheels
spin mud. So what, this line of thinking goes, if you have been aided by others
in the past, that means nothing now, for those were those people, and these are
these? If you go out of your way and help these strangers, you are doing a good
deed, period.
    Nozick is a theorist who is known for having a spare deontological theory.51
But his moral ontology of duties is more encompassing than just the duty not
to harm others, for he recognizes that duties can be created by promising.
In general, his account focuses on consent as the font of duties one creates,
besides the basic duty not to harm others. It will be of interest to consider what
he might say about examples such as the duty to reciprocate in helping people
out of the snow. Remember that we are trying to see if popular morality holds
that participation in norms and customs generates moral relationships of various
sorts, and Nozick’s theory is fairly seen as a philosophical interpretation of one
strain of ordinary morality, the individualistic strain. As our society is popularly
described as relatively individualistic compared to other societies, this strain
clearly has some currency.
    The snow example appears to escape Nozick’s well-known criticisms of the
fairness argument. Nozick’s method of undermining the fairness argument is
to present examples in which people receive benefits of the sort Nozick claims
Hart and Rawls are committed to, and yet where common intuition is arguably
pulled in the other direction, such that we would think the required contributions
are coercive rather than fair. One of Nozick’s most famous examples is that in
which a neighborhood association sets up a program whereby public address
broadcasts are made daily by members of the community who play music, tell
stories, and the like.52 Nozick argues that the mere fact that one benefits would
not create an obligation to contribute one’s time at the broadcast station doing
a day of programming as one’s share of the year’s output.
    Nozick’s line of argument is effective because he creates a situation that
fits the broad features of the fairness argument but that, where common moral
intuition is inclined, at least strongly doubts whether the duty of contributing
                             Emergent Moral Norms                              111

is owed simply because of the receipt of benefits of this sort. He offers a few
other similar examples including one where a person has books delivered to his
house by a stranger who does this as a practice.53
    A feature of Nozick’s examples that helps create his desired effect on our
intuitions is that in each of them it is dubious whether the voluntariness condition
is met. Rather, one is going about one’s business and then the benefits are thrust
upon one. Nozick’s foes contend that this makes these examples inapropros
Hart’s and Rawls’s argument, for these theorists envision persons who are more
sanguine about the practices from which they accept benefits; hence, it is more
intuitively plausible to contend that the voluntariness condition is met.54 But
Nozick has a ready retort available. Indeed, his examples are weak on the
voluntariness condition, but in this they simply parallel the situation where
the state provides public goods and extracts contributions from taxpayers, for
the state does not perform a voluntariness test on particular persons to see
if they wish to accept the benefits.55 Even if this point is telling against Hart and
Rawls, it is not telling against those norms and customs in which voluntariness
is not at issue.
    Another worry Nozick raises is that there is a problem if one person benefits
from the scheme but others benefit much more.56 How can this person be said to
have an equal obligation to contribute? John Simmons considers this objection
and properly observes that what seems intuitively fair is that, if there is a duty
at all, it would be a duty to contribute roughly in proportion to the relative
degree of one’s benefit. There is no apparent reason Nozick could not accept
this modification. And indeed, in the snow-pushing example, people need not
suffer from a situation of a less attractive benefits/contributions ratio than their
peers, for the practice is such that one can self-monitor one’s own contributions.
If one thinks one is giving more than one’s share of assistance, one can simply
reduce one’s level of contribution, that is, drive by the stranded motorist with
averted gaze if one feels oneself to be a burdened lender in the informal favor
    Nozick next worries that even if these conditions hold, one might still prefer
that a different scheme existed.57 But one will not be able to work to bring about
one’s new scheme if one is duty bound to contribute toward the present one.
This objection is another version of casting the beneficiary as an outsider to the
scheme. Nozick is correct here; this is a problem for the basic intuition. Fortu-
nately again, for our purposes of establishing the existence of a minimal case
for the moral intuition (a methodology, by the way, that drives Anarchy, State,
and Utopia), we will be able to set aside such cases as admittedly troublesome,
for there will still be many cases where the person has no problems of this
sort with the practice, except, that is, that, other things being equal, she would
prefer to receive its benefits for free. Often, there is no real issue about pref-
erences for alternative practices because the extant practices seem to verge on
being uniquely satisfactory; hence, there are no disgruntled citizens who prefer
112               the pattern conception of norms

a shift to a new one. This seems to be a fair description of the snow-pushing
practice for instance.
    We see then that, despite Nozick’s worries, making out the basic situation
where a fairness obligation is attractive to ordinary morality is quite simple. The
problem of course is that the further particular situations are from the paradigm
example, the more cloudy the basic intuition will become. But to a basic case
such as that outlined here, Nozick’s worries do not apply. The principle of
fairness or reciprocity appears, then, to be a sound moral intuition, by the lights
of ordinary morality; just Hart and Rawls tried to get too much from it, as
the principle appears clearly more attractive when applied to small groups as
compared to serving as a grounding for political obligation.
    To establish this point says nothing about why people actually conform to
SD norms. For all the fairness argument says, it may still be the case that the
Hobbesians are correct and all people are narrowly self-interested and only
conform when it promotes their narrow self-interest to do so. But, as discussed
earlier, predominant egoism may be the better assumption about human moti-
vation; in which case the fact that ordinary morality appears to promote some
forms of the fairness obligation may mean that some conforming behavior to
SD norms is best explained as an expression of this moral impulse. In other
words, some persons conform, and encourage others to conform, as a result of
a belief in the moral propriety of contributing to practices one voluntarily takes
part in and benefits from.
    Some rational choice theorists have entertained the possibility that such
fairness or reciprocity concerns might indeed motivate people to conform. Such
conformers could still be predominantly self-interested, just not totally so to the
point of defection on every possible occasion. What the account does is put more
clothes on the bare skeleton of accounts such as those of Kavka and Margolis,
who think that a concern for fairness is part of the makeup of the predominant
egoist but who do not specify the workings of the principle in sufficient detail.
Margolis, for example, spells out fairness in proportional terms such that one is
fair to others by exhibiting some altruism when one has not done so in a while,
or by exhibiting altruism when the cost to oneself is small and the benefit
is great.58 Margolis does not take account of the manner in which predominant
egoists will adjust their other-regarding behavior in a reciprocal fashion to
benefit those who made possible the norm under which they benefit.

                       C. The Morality of Coordination
The previous section explored the moral element that is most salient with SD
norms. This section looks at the moral elements most salient in coordination
norms. Fairness concerns arising in the context of the temptation to free ride
appear not to arise as a result of the strategic structure of coordination norms.
Recall that a coordination norm is maintained by persons seeking to achieve the
                              Emergent Moral Norms                                 113

coordination benefit. Sanctions are not required to maintain the norm because
there is no natural inclination to free ride. Just the opposite, because others
conform, it is also in one’s interest to conform. The first question to ask then
is whether there are any moral duties or other sorts of moral relationships that
arise in such a context?
   Lewis’s discussion of the morality of conventions is relevant. As noted in
Chapter Two, although Lewis talks about conventions, he has in mind the
strategic structure of proper coordination equilibria. With proper coordina-
tion equilibria, others have an interest that one conform, that is, their payoffs
are positively impacted by one’s conformity. Lewis discusses the morality of
conventions in the following terms.

[C]onventions may be a species of norms: regularities to which we believe one ought to
conform. I shall argue that they are. There are certain probable consequences implied by
the fact that an action would conform to a convention (whatever the action and whatever
the convention) which are presumptive reasons, according to our common opinions, why
that action ought to be done.59

Lewis goes on: “And we presume, other things equal, that one ought to do
what answers to others’ preferences, especially when they may reasonably
expect one to do so.”60 We see here that Lewis is touching upon the issue of
moral legitimacy for both preferences and expectations. With respect to the
preferences of other conformers to conventions, Lewis’s basic moral claim is
that one ought to do what answers to these preferences, namely conform. Notice
that Lewis refers to “we,” as the holders of this view. In other words, he takes
himself to be presenting a characterization of common sense or ordinary moral
    Recall that for Lewis, conventions have the structure of proper coordination
equilibria, which means that each of the conformers benefits from the confor-
mity of each of the others. This explains why each will have a preference that
each of the others conform. In addition, each person does better for himself
by conforming, given the conformity of the others. Hence, conformity will be
individually rational and so each will likely want to conform. Because each
wants to conform, it will be rational for each to expect others to conform; all
other things equal, it is reasonable to expect people to do what is in their in-
terest. Because people expect one to conform, they will be likely to gear their
behavior toward this expectation; hence, they may suffer a loss if one fails to
conform as a result. This is an instance in which others’ expectations of oneself
bring their interests into play. And according to Lewis, other things equal, or-
dinary morality requires us to do what answers to other peoples’ expectations.
This is Lewis’s basic account of how expectations generated in the context of
conventions may take on moral properties.
    Lewis here is making a very strong claim about the nature of ordinary moral-
ity vis-` -vis the moral fecundity of expectations, namely, that one always has a
114                the pattern conception of norms

prima facie duty to meet the expectations of others. When stated minimally like
this, it immediately appears to be a suspicious claim. It is suspicious because
the moral impulse seems not to characterize ordinary morality so much as to
reflect a particular critical moral viewpoint, utilitarianism.
    It seems simply incorrect that by the lights of everyday morality one ought
to seek to meet others’ expectations, per se. Often times, one will disagree
with the moral propriety or social worth of the preferences of another. In such
circumstances, it is clear that ordinary morality does not require giving weight
to the preference. If, for instance, a non-Christian lives in a community of
fundamentalist Christians who prefer that certain sorts of activities not occur,
such as the reading and writing of secular philosophy, she need not give these
preferences weight in deciding whether or not to pursue her interest. It is clear
why others would like one to conform to their preferences; they benefit. This
pure desire is not enough by the lights of ordinary morality to create a duty
or entitlement. I would like you to send me $1000 right now, but this does not
mean that I think you are duty bound in this regard.
    Everyday morality is fairly individualistic and places greater emphasis on
the negative duties than the positive duties. One has a general duty to not harm
others, but not a general duty to benefit them. Ordinary moral thinking does of
course acknowledge the value of going out of one’s way to benefit others. This
is seen as satisfying what moral theorists label supererogatory duties, which are
those duties that are not required to be carried out in particular circumstances.
    Gerald Postema provides the following example to illustrate the negative
rights perspective on the duties that flow from expectations. The example ap-
pears to capture an element of ordinary morality more closely than does the
utilitarian account. He writes:

Tradition has it that Kant’s daily walks through the streets of Konigsberg were as regular
as clockwork. But the fact that Frau Schmidt put her pie in the oven with the expectation
that she would be reminded to remove it by the sight of the philosopher walking past
her window would not put Kant under any obligation to walk his accustomed route,
even if he knew Frau Schmidt’s plans. Frau Schmidt’s expectations were reasonable
enough – she had reason to expect Kant to pass by at the appropriate time – but she
was not entitled to expect him to do so. She had, we might say, reasonable but not fully
legitimate expectations.61

According to Postema, the implication here is that one does not have any prima
facie duties to meet others’ expectations. A bare expectation is not a “legitimate
expectation.” Note that in this passage Postema appears to be providing his own
critical moral viewpoint rather than attempting to characterize ordinary moral-
ity. Though his critical viewpoint seems closer to ordinary morality than that
of Lewis, he may have come too far in the other direction from the perspective
of common moral intuition, as it would appear that in situations of a sort simi-
lar to that Postema describes, we would indeed recognize some sorts of moral
                             Emergent Moral Norms                                115

relationships emerging. Should Kant have no concerns whatsoever about Frau
Schmidt’s pies?
    Postema contends that expectations may take on an obligatory character
where there is detrimental reliance on the expectation and the expectation was
“induced.”62 This notion is closely related to the doctrine of promissory estoppel
in contract law.63
    Promissory estoppel is a doctrine whereby the law will enforce certain sorts
of promises in which the usual requirement of consideration is not met and yet a
promise or other relevant behavior that induced reliance by the promisee ended
up working to her detriment.64 Postema is not discussing the legal doctrine,
however. Rather, his claim is that as a matter of morality, expectations of others
that arise as a result of conventions will take on an obligatory character when
there is induced detrimental reliance. Postema does not attempt to argue in
great detail for the validity of this claim as a matter of critical morality. For
his purposes, it is enough that the underlying moral intuition is of reasonable
enough warrant to be incorporated into the law.65
    What is striking about Postema’s moral claim is its minimal character when
compared to Lewis’s utilitarian-inspired moral intuition. Whereas Lewis thinks
all expectations have prima facie moral weight, Postema thinks that none do,
save those cases where there is induced detrimental reliance. There are posi-
tions even less demanding than Postema’s. For someone could ask, why should
induced detrimental reliance create an obligation? For example, a critical moral
theorist who only accepted the principle that one has a duty not to harm oth-
ers might say that induced detrimental reliance does not create an obligation
unless one thereby harms others, as presumably, these are cases where there
is induced reliance that is detrimental but not to the point of harming another.
In such cases, the negative harm theorist would say that there is no obligation
despite the induced detrimental reliance.
    Other critical moral viewpoints will be more demanding than either of these
positions but still less demanding than the utilitarian position. For example,
some theorists will acknowledge that some preferences and expectations, but
not others, matter. They may have a sort of Parfitian objective list approach such
that there is a list of things that are morally good and others that are morally
bad.66 Expectations regarding outcomes that are morally good are worthy of
respect, but expectations for the morally bad are not.
    Alternatively, one might adopt a proportionality principle of the sort that
Margolis and Kavka contend is part of everyday morality. If one sees that, by
failing to meet another’s expectation, she would suffer great loss, but that going
out of her way to satisfy their expectation can be done at relatively little cost, she
may deem herself morally required to meet their expectations. These theorists
implicitly disagree with Postema, holding that if we ever have moral obligations
to be just flat out giving of ourselves, it is in cases where a little help on our part
can do a great deal of good to a person innocently in a position to otherwise
116               the pattern conception of norms

suffer a significant loss. A less demanding but similar position would hold
that though one may not have a duty to meet others’ expectations, one may
nevertheless have a duty to inform the person of one’s change of plan so that
they can adjust their plans, if the cost of doing so is within reasonable bounds.
Here the proportional cost to oneself versus the benefit to another may be small
indeed. It seems as if Postema has identified an existent ordinary moral impulse
or intuition in the duty that he shows arises in situations of induced detrimental
    It will be helpful to go beyond discussion of conventions in Lewis’s sense
and to look at the more inclusive concept of a coordination norm, as this notion
has been defined in Chapter Two. With one-directional norms, the coordination
effect only impacts the putative new conformer, whereas, with two-directional
coordination norms, there is a coordination effect for both the new conformer
and the current conformers. For the current conformers, the coordination effect
may be positive or negative, that is, they may either prefer or disprefer that the
putative conformer conform.
    Consider first the moral evaluation when there is only a one-directional
coordination effect. Because it is only oneself who benefits, the question is
really about whether there is a duty to benefit oneself. Some moral theorists
do indeed contend that one has moral duties to oneself; nevertheless, judging
by the relative dearth of literature on the topic, this is generally seen as a
tangential issue in moral theory, which, for the most part, concerns itself with
relationships between people and the types of moral relationships created by
these interactions. And even within moral theory, to the extent that the issue is
discussed, it is controversial whether one has moral duties toward oneself.
    The main concern in this chapter is to explicate the ordinary morality of
such situations and not their status by lights of critical morality. It appears
to be more consonant with ordinary morality to reject the notion of duties to
oneself as a needless interference with one’s highly valued personal freedom.
The presumption of freedom is a moral impulse whereby one is permitted by
morality to take the freedom to do what one wants with one’s life as long as,
along the way, one takes time out to fulfill an often fairly modest set of duties to
charity, special relationships, and the like. The presumption of freedom applied
to coordination norms would focus on the basic structure of the situation and
evaluate its implications for the freedom of the relevant participants.
    With one-directional norms, the person considering conforming has the free-
dom to choose whether or not to conform. Because we are discussing coordi-
nation norms, it is by definition in the interest of the person to conform. But
it is a basic element of freedom that one be free to maximally promote one’s
interests, or not, as one pleases. This strain of ordinary morality is clearly evi-
dent in the context of current social debate over issues such as the coerced use
of motorcycle helmets, seat belts, airbags, and the like. Those who argue that
they should be free to choose to use these safety items, or not, as they so please,
                            Emergent Moral Norms                              117

typically do not ground their argument in the claim that indirectly such a rule
will promote their interests. Rather, the position is grounded in the fundamental
moral impulse that one should be free to act as one likes when it comes to what
are seen as essentially self-regarding behaviors. Inasmuch as a presumption
of freedom is a part of everyday morality, one appears not to have a duty to
conform to the norm simply to achieve a coordination benefit for oneself. In
a phrase, then, one-directional coordination norms generate opportunities not
    The next question is what duties, if any, are generated in the context of
two-directional coordination norms. These have the strategic structure of the
conventions discussed by Lewis in which both the potential conformer and
the current conformers benefit from conformity. The foregoing discussion of
the views of Lewis and Postema showed that indeed by both the lights of
utilitarianism and ordinary morality, moral duties may arise in these situations.
    It turns out, however, that the most central moral underpinning of coordina-
tion norms has not been discussed in the rational choice literature on conventions
or coordination norms. This moral intuition is one manifestation of one of the
most overreaching of all moral intuitions, the tort duty not to harm others.
When moral and political theorists talk about the duty not to harm, usually they
implicitly have a notion of intentional harm in mind. But the notion of uninten-
tional harm is actually of greater interest when it comes to exploring the moral
complexities of coordination norms.
    Unintentional harms result from unintended causal chains leading from neu-
tral or even beneficent acts to harmful consequences. By the lights of common
sense morality, one test of whether you are morally culpable for these unin-
tended consequences is whether you were careless or negligent in the behavior
leading up to the action of yours that proved to be harmful to another.67 For
instance, you will be held culpable if though the harm was unintended, it never-
theless could have easily been foreseen, and if foreseen deserved to be stopped.
    It appears, then, that the bare moral principle of harm avoidance implies two
duties, one negative and the other positive. On the one hand, there is the duty to
refrain from intentionally harming others. This is a negative duty in that it does
not require an action but rather the forbearance of action. On the other hand,
there is the duty to take reasonable precautions so as to avoid unintentionally
harming others, which appears to be a positive duty because it requires positive
behavior on one’s part, namely, taking precautions.68 Intentional harm is for
many people easier to stop than unintentional harm. One can more or less decide
never to murder, rob, and so on. One cannot just decide not to unintentionally
harm others. In fact, as long as one is living and breathing, there is nothing one
can do to rule out the possibility of unintentionally harming others. The best
one can do is take steps to lower the risk of harming others.69
    The important question for present purposes is whether forming expectations
may aid one in better avoiding the negligent harming of others and thus whether
118               the pattern conception of norms

there is some sort of obligation to pay proper attention to expectations. Much of
negligent harming arises from social interaction gone awry, social collisions so
to speak. The more in touch one is with the social practices of one’s normative
milieu, the more finely honed one’s expectations of the future activity of others
will be. This knowledge will allow for a higher degree of interactiveness and a
smoother level of performance, and so less friction and, in the end, less social
collisions. To interact at a higher level is to form expectations of others and
to let them form expectations of you, so that coordination may occur. To be
properly cautious, then, you may need to be apprised of the local community
practices so that you know what to expect of others, and so that they in turn will
know what to expect of you. Consequently, our ability to be moral by avoiding
harming others depends in part on our ability to properly form and act on our
expectations regarding extant norms and customs.
    I postulate, then, the existence of a general moral duty (by the lights of ordi-
nary morality) to form expectations about the behavior of those one is dealing
with, that is, to form expectations about the general patterns of behavior extant
in one’s community. Because much of this is behavior that conforms to norms
and customs, one has a duty to form expectations about others’ conforming
behavior. Not only is this plausibly seen as a duty of ordinary morality, but it
would also likely be endorsed by a variety of critical moral theories because
it is built on the bare moral principle that it is wrong to harm or injure others,
which is a principle that is widely endorsed.
    A striking feature of this moral assertion is its broad applicability. For al-
though the injunction to be normatively sensitive to one’s social environment
may appear not to present an especially weighty consideration when compared
to the injunction against murder, for example, yet its significance lies in the per-
vasiveness of relevant situations. For most people, injunctions against positive
harms such as murder do not play a major role in their day-to-day lives because
this behavior is not a usual temptation. But the issue of the negligent harming
of others is one that all people must deal with on a regular basis. As long as one
is in society, one must be vigilant not to harm others through negligence. This
can be a challenge as one may often be thrust into new situations that require
one to appraise anew what would be appropriate behavior.70 This duty holds
for all members of society for all other members.
    We see then that expectations created by the existence of practices do indeed
engender moral relationships by the lights of ordinary morality, although not
for the reason championed by Lewis. It is not the moral impulse to maximize
utility that undergirds the relationship. Rather, it is the harm principle. Note
that this duty to take reasonable precautions not to inadvertently harm others
applies to all structures of norms, for the moral relationship does not depend
on strategic structure but simply on the fact that practices create expectations
and that one may inadvertently harm others by failing to pay enough attention
to what one may expect of them.
                            Emergent Moral Norms                              119

Section One developed the concept of predominant egoism in order to reconcile
the rational choice and moral theoretic approaches. In Section Two, we saw that
participation in particular norms may create various sorts of moral relationships.
I have only explored the most basic ones. We saw that fairness and reciprocity
relationships, obligations based on the creation of induced detrimental reliance,
and a duty not to harm may all emerge. These emergent moral relationships will
be of interest in the exploration of the law in Parts Two and Three. For although
I have looked at informal practices solely here, when judges and juries look at
these same sorts of practices in the context of legal disputes, we will see that
they are also attuned to the moral relationships that such practices incorporate
and give rise to. Thus, seeing how practices may give rise to moral relationships
in Section Two of this chapter will help to make sense of the behavior of courts.
First, however, it will be necessary to complete the development of the pattern
conception of norms, which is the task of the next chapter.
                     Critical Moral Norms

   Without such a convention, no one wou’d ever have dream’d, that there was such
   a virtue as justice, or have been induc’d to conform his actions to it. Taking any
   single act, my justice may be pernicious in every respect; and ’tis only upon
   the supposition, that others are to imitate my example, that I can be induc’d to
   embrace that virtue.1
                                                                        David Hume

Varieties of moral acts fall into two main types: outcome-oriented moral acts
and action-oriented moral acts. Outcome-oriented moral norms are constituted
by outcome-oriented acts, and action-oriented norms are constituted by action-
oriented moral acts. An outcome-oriented act is one that is taken to be right
insofar as it is the best means to some desired consequences. An action-oriented
act is taken to be right for some reason other than, or in conjunction with, its
role in the production of desired consequences. Both deontological and virtue-
theoretic behavior may be considered action-oriented. Outcome-oriented norms
will be examined in Section I, and action-oriented noms will be examined in
Section II.
   Prima facie, it is puzzling how action-oriented moral behavior might lead
to norms. Kantian reasoning is the paradigm of action-oriented behavior. The
notion of conformity necessary for norms seems alien to Kantian thought. For
the Kantian, when duty calls for one to act in some particular manner, the fact
that others are not acting in this manner does not negate one’s duty. Nor does
the simple fact that others are acting in some particular manner provide one
with reason to act in the same manner. In both types of situations, Kantianism
appears to exclude such empirical concerns from the domain of moral reasoning.
Thus, if not downright hostile, Kantian morality, and so perhaps non-outcome-
oriented morality generally, seems prima facie incompatible with a normative
framework built on acts of conformity.
                             Critical Moral Norms                            121

   In contrast, it seems fairly obvious that outcome-oriented views might be
reconciled to conformity. If it would maximize good outcomes to conform, then
the outcome-oriented moral actor should conform. In the following discussion,
outcome-oriented moral norms will be examined first, then I will take up the
more difficult issue of how conformity to norms may make sense from an
action-oriented moral point of view.
   As with rational norms, moral norms are subdivided into types depending on
the circumstances, strategic or otherwise, in which conformity arises. Surpris-
ingly, the same general types of circumstance that exist for rational norms exist
for moral norms, that is, there are coordination moral norms, sanction-driven
moral norms, and epistemic moral norms. This indicates a certain unity of the
normative. In addition, the strategic structure of the normative world is shown
to be independent of the assumption of Homo economicus.

                        I. Outcome-Oriented Norms
The building blocks of outcome-oriented norms are outcome-oriented acts of
conformity that are motivated by desires that are neither selfish nor irrational.
These are other-regarding acts.2 There are two dimensions along which an
action may be other-regarding. It may be other-regarding with respect to the
scope of concern and the degree of concern.
    Scope of concern refers to the breadth of one’s regard for others. One may
have a very small scope of concern for others, say, for example, if one is
concerned only with one’s family and friends. On the other hand, utilitarians
believe in a universal moral domain, that is, the scope of concern includes all
moral agents. The actions that make up outcome-oriented moral norms may
have a scope of concern anywhere between these extremes. For example, those
who act in the national interest have a scope of concern that includes other
citizens but not necessarily foreigners; teachers often act with genuine moral
concern for their students; loyal employees sometimes act with regard for the
interests of their companies.
    Degree of concern refers to the weight attached to the interests of those who
are included in the scope of one’s concern. One may count others, for example,
but count them very little. Utilitarians (and consequentialists generally) count
all people equally, but many others who act with regard to their fellows do not
count the interests of all to the same degree. Just as some consequentialists may
take the interests of animals into account but discount their value relative to
humans, others do the same with regard to their fellow humans. For example,
a parent may weigh the interests of her family as greater than the interests
of others. A member of Congress may weigh the interests of her constituents
above the interests of other citizens, whose interests are in turn ranked higher
than those of noncitizens. The concern of some people for their fellows has
122              the pattern conception of norms

been characterized as a series of concentric circles. We have most concern for
ourselves, then our family, friends, community, and so on.3
    In principle, the possible number of other-regarding motivational types is
the number of possible combinations of members in the scope of concern, mul-
tiplied by the possible combinations of degrees of concern. Of course, most of
these possibilities are never realized. Mainstream moral theory has considered
only a small number of these combinations as of legitimate interest. In the case
of utilitarianism, only one combination counts (open scope, equal degree).
    As noted in previous chapters, coordination norms and sanction-driven
norms arise in situations of strategic interaction, and epistemic norms arise
in situations of nonstrategic interaction. Sanction-driven norms arise in sit-
uations of strategic interaction in which sanctions are necessarily present,
whereas they need not be present in situations in which coordination norms
arise. Conformity in coordination situations produces coordination norms; con-
formity in sanctioned-coordination situations produces sanction-driven norms,
and conformity in epistemic situations produces epistemic norms.
    Each of these three situations has a moral analogue. In other words, confor-
mity turns out to be in the spirit of outcome-oriented morality in coordination,
sanctioned-coordination, and epistemic situations. In the following discussion,
outcome-oriented morality will be subdivided into cases of motivation with a
universal scope of concern and cases with a restricted scope of concern. The
reason for this will become apparent. The strategic situations will first be exam-
ined for both universal and restricted scopes of concern. Next, the nonstrategic
case will be considered.

            A. Universal Scope of Concern: Utilitarian Teleology
I will restrict my remarks in this section to the case of utilitarian moral mo-
tivation, which is the paradigm of moral motivation with a universal scope of
concern. It turns out that utilitarian norms may be maintained in each of the
three types of norm-producing situations. This will first be seen for coordina-
tion norms, next for SD norms, and finally for epistemic norms. The first two
are the coordination situation and the sanctioned-coordination situation.
   Recall from Chapter Two that there are a variety of related strategic struc-
tures that tend to produce coordination norms among rational agents. Lewis
and Ullmann-Margalit thought the class was restricted to situations of iterated
coordination problems with a minimum of two proper coordination equilibria.
We saw that, in fact, a wider range of situations may be sufficient for the gen-
eration and maintenance of coordination norms. As argued in Chapter Two, the
crucial factor for determining whether something is a coordination norm turns
out to be whether one may achieve a coordination benefit from coordinating
with others, regardless of whether the strategic situation happens to have two
proper coordination equilibria.
                              Critical Moral Norms                               123

    The same is true for utilitarian coordination norms. What matters is that,
as a result of coordination, one is able to secure a coordination benefit. But
it does not matter for whom the benefit is secured. It will not be necessary
to consider the truth of this claim for all the various coordination structures
considered in Chapter Two. I will look at only structures to make the general
point, as their broader application out from here would be fairly straightfor-
ward. Consider first the simplest sort of coordination situation, labeled earlier
as the Rock Quarry Game. The example was one of two children coordinat-
ing at a swimming hole. The same situation can be considered for utilitarian
    The basic point of interest is that just as rational egoists will coordinate on
the 1, 1 outcome, so too will utilitarians. For they are interested in choosing
acts that produce the most utility. In this case, the utilitarian act is to coordinate
with the other person at the rock quarry. Rational agents in strategic situations
care about the array of payoffs for the other agent only because it contains clues
as to what the other is likely to do. For utilitarians, in contrast, the payoffs to
the other player matter in their own right.
    In repeated situations of this structure in which norms develop, they will
be conformed to by utilitarian agents working to achieve the coordination ben-
efit. Thus we see that the notion of conformity to coordination norms makes
sense from a utilitarian point of view. Whereas conformity made sense to ego-
ists because it was rational, conformity to coordination norms makes sense to
utilitarians because it is moral, that is, utility-maximizing.
    Another distinct feature of utilitarian coordination is that the payoffs need
not go to either of the participants. For example, the payoffs could represent the
ranking of people other than the agents. In this case, suppose that the parents
of each of the children want their child to learn to swim, and so the payoffs in
Figure 5.1 characterize the parents’ preferences. Note that although each of the
children are neutral toward the different outcomes as far as their own utilities
are concerned, as utilitarian junior achievers, they coordinate in order to please
the parents.


                                               Goes            Doesn’t Go

                            Goes               1, 1                0, 0

                         Doesn’t Go            0, 0                0, 0

                 Figure 5.1 The Rock Quarry Game for Utilitarians
124               the pattern conception of norms


                                               A                  B

                            A                 2, 1               0, 0

                            B                 0, 0               1, 2

                    Figure 5.2 Coordination and Conflict Game


                                           Cooperate            Defect

                        Cooperate             3, 3               1, 4

                          Defect              4, 1               2, 2

            Figure 5.3 Artificial Coordination in the Prisoner’s Dilemma

    Recall that egoists may face situations of mixed coordination and conflict
as shown in Figure 5.2. Though each egoist prefers disadvantageous coordi-
nation over noncoordination, each also prefers even more to coordinate at the
outcome in which she rather than the other receives the higher payoff. For Row,
this is choice A, while for Column, it is choice B. Each of the players faces a
situation that combines coordination and conflict. This is not the case for utili-
tarians, however. A utilitarian will be indifferent toward either of the preferred
outcomes. It does not matter who does better as long as the sum is equally
beneficial because utilitarians care about total utility, not how it is distributed.
Thus, for utilitarians no conflict can arise in these types of games.
    Earlier, we saw that, for egoists, conformity to an SD norm is only rational
owing to the presence of sanctions. Though sanctions may arise from many
sources, we focused on those in the form of implicit threats on the part of others
to discontinue cooperation if one defects in a single game of the Prisoner’s
    Figure 5.3 shows the payoff structure of a single game. When both cooperate,
the outcome is 3, 3. It is in the self-interest of each of the agents, however, to
defect. This results in the suboptimal outcome 2, 2, in which each does worse
than she would have had both cooperated. As we saw in Chapter Two, when the
                             Critical Moral Norms                              125

game is iterated, it may be rational for each of the agents to choose to cooperate.
The reason is that otherwise the other agent will cease to cooperate in order
not to be suckered in future plays. Thus the threat of sanctions in the form of
threats not to cooperate in the future may lead rational agents to cooperate.
    Unlike the egoist, the utilitarian is interested in producing the optimal out-
come for all concerned. The utilitarian will not defect when it is in her self-
interest to do so. Rather she will cooperate when this will help lead to the
production of the optimal outcome. For example in the matrix in Figure 5.3,
if the numbers represent individual utilities, utilitarians will see that the
3, 3 outcome is optimal from a utilitarian point of view. Hence they should
be able to coordinate on the cooperative choice to bring it about.
    Unlike egoists, utilitarians will not have conflicts over the production of
different outcomes because each will prefer the same outcome, the one that is
socially optimal. Thus, utilitarians (and those with universal scopes of concern,
generally) will not need to threaten one another with sanctions as a means of
bringing about conformity. It would appear that this would imply that for the
utilitarian there will be no situations in which the maintenance of the norm is
the result of fear of sanctions of the type I have called situations of sanctioned
coordination. A group of utilitarians, might, however, conform to a norm due
to the threat of sanctions imposed from outside. Thus, utilitarians might have
external sanction-driven norms but not internal sanction-driven norms, as these
terms were used in Chapter Two. The same is not true for outcome-oriented
moral motivation with a restricted scope of concern, as we will now see.

          B. Restricted Scope of Concern: Nonutilitarian Teleology
Just as egoists and utilitarians may sometimes face each other in strategic sit-
uations that have a structure such that there is no conflict of interest, the same
may happen to persons exhibiting nonuniversal teleological moral motivation.
You may do what is best for your group and I for mine, but in the particular
situation in which we find ourselves, there is a perfect coincidence of interests,
that is, we both rank all the outcomes identically.
    In a game with the coordination structure of Figure 5.4, we have a per-
fect coincidence of interests. In particular, we both desire that choice A, the
3, 3 outcome, be realized.4 Thus, strategic interaction does not necessarily mean
conflict for players with restricted scopes of concern. But in coordination games
in which there is not an identical ranking of outcomes, there will be conflict.
    In the strategic situation of Figure 5.5, each prefers coordination on the
other’s terms to noncoordination, but each prefers still more to coordinate on
her own terms, that is, to coordinate on the outcome in which her family receives
2 rather than 1. Even though sanctions may not be necessary to bring about
coordination in such an instance, there is conflict. This is in contrast to the case
of universal scope of concern in which such situations do not generate conflict.
126              the pattern conception of norms


                                              A                   B

                            A                3, 3                1, 1

                            B                1, 1                2, 2

              Figure 5.4 Pure Coordination with Ranked Alternatives

                                       Column-Chooser’s Family

                                               A                   B

                             A                2, 1               0, 0
                             B                0, 0               1, 2

          Figure 5.5 Conflict Resulting from Restricted Scope of Concern


                                              C                   D

                            A                3, 3                1, 4

                            B                4, 1                2, 2

               Figure 5.6 Narrow Scope and the Prisoner’s Dilemma

   There also will be conflict in situations that have the strategic structure of
a Prisoner’s Dilemma (Figure 5.6). In this situation, each most prefers that the
other cooperate and she defect, therefore suckering the other and producing the
best results for her own family. In iterated play, however, mutual cooperation
may be achieved through mutual threat to discontinue cooperation if the other
defects. Thus the threat of sanctions may produce cooperation. Situations of this
                             Critical Moral Norms                             127

sort may produce sanction-driven norms, that is, those that are only sustainable
as a result of the presence of sanctions internal to the conformers. Hence,
whereas utilitarians will not have internal sanction-driven norms, those with
restricted scopes of concern may.
   There is an interesting intermediate case between norms that result from uni-
versal scope motivation and norms that result from restricted scope motivation.
These are cases in which conformers have restricted scope motivation, but each
has the same scope of concern. In such cases, even though each has a nonuni-
versal scope of concern, if each shares the same scope, they will not conflict in
their preferences. Examples arise in a number of different circumstances. The
circumstances vary according to the relation between the group of conformers
and the group for which concern is being shown, the beneficiaries.
   For example, teachers of a grammar school might have certain norms, con-
formity to which is motivated by the desire to promote the interests of the
school’s underprivileged students. Here the beneficiary group is distinct from
the group of conformers. In the following example, the group of conformers
and the group of beneficiaries partially overlap. Suppose that the beneficiaries
of nonsexist language norms are women, and the group of conformers to these
norms consists of men and women. Then there is a partial overlap between the
group of conformers and the group of beneficiaries, namely, the female con-
formers. Alternatively, the norm group may be a subset of the benefit group, or
vice versa. An example of the first would be a group of politicians all devoted to
the same constituency. Examples of the second might be norms among the pres-
ident and her White House staff, which have the goal that she be cast in the most
favorable light. All these examples share the feature that, because all the con-
formers aim at the same outcome ( just as utilitarians do), there will be no
conflict in their norm-conforming behavior and hence no need for sanctions.
Consequently, in such circumstances, sanction-driven norms will not form.
   To summarize this section, the difference between universal and restricted
scope motivation appears to be the following. Agents who are motivated by a
universal scope of concern will never conflict over outcomes when interacting
with other agents with the same universalistic motivation. Agents with restricted
scopes of concern may or may not conflict, depending on whether the others
in the interaction situation have the same or different nonuniversal scopes of
concern. For example, utilitarians will never conflict with other utilitarians in
strategic situations, whereas nationalists may or may not conflict with other na-
tionalists, depending on whether the other nationalists in the strategic situation
are nationalists of the same or of a different nationality. Thus, for utilitari-
ans, internal sanction-driven norms will not arise because conflict is required
to create the need for artificial coordination, and as we see, utilitarians will
have no conflicts of this nature. Those who hold nonuniversal scopes of con-
cern will run into conflict with others who hold different nonuniversal scopes
of concern. Having now considered how outcome-oriented moral actors will
128               the pattern conception of norms

conform to norms in strategic situations, it is time to look at what they will do
in nonstrategic situations.

                    C. Outcome-Oriented Epistemic Norms
In this subsection, the concern is whether conformity to norms is consistent
with outcome-oriented moral acts in nonstrategic situations. Norms constituted
by a preponderance of such acts are epistemic norms. In the last chapter, we saw
that egoists will sometimes conform to norms as a short-cut to maximizing their
welfare. In conforming, they bypass a great deal of the need for information
and calculation that might otherwise be required to make the best choice. Thus,
norms can be low-cost providers of information on how to act. In a particular
instance, conformity might not prove to have been the best choice, but in the
long run, conformity will often pay off, due to the overall savings in information
and calculation costs.
    The same possibility for economizing on the cost of information through
conformity appears to hold for adherents to outcome-oriented moralities. They
are in an analogous situation to egoists; they want to perform the right action,
which for them is the one that will produce the best outcome, but they lack
information to indicate what that action is. They may expend resources to de-
termine what the best act is, but this cost must be subtracted from any additional
gains the search garners. It may be the case that they are better off conforming
to extant norms than acquiring more information and performing a calculation
on each occasion.
    The general idea at work here is as old as the notion of rules of thumb in
utilitarian theory. One follows rules of thumb in order to avoid calculating before
each decision. As we saw in Chapter One, however, the notions of conforming to
rules and conforming to norms are not equivalent. As discussed there, it is often
harmless to treat norms like rules, and indeed many norms are accompanied by
what I call norm statements, which are essentially rules. For many norms, the
behavior required to conform is fairly easily described in a few words. In these
cases, talk of rule conformity versus norm conformity matters little, as long as
one keeps in mind that there is a difference that may show up, especially when
subtle and complex norms are at issue. But even when the case is complex and
cannot be captured in a rule, one can still save on information by conforming
to norms.
    The following two examples show that the conformity necessary for epis-
temic norms is consistent with outcome-oriented morality. The first was dis-
cussed in Chapter Two. It is modified here to exemplify the outcome-oriented
morality of those who have concern for the outcome of their children. The
second example deals with the morality of concern for the environment. Thus
the first is roughly a case of a restricted scope of concern, and the second is a
case of universal scope of concern.
                             Critical Moral Norms                            129

    Recall the example of the neighbor who is a highly respected child psychol-
ogist who in general seems to exhibit good judgment and common sense in our
occasional interactions. Under the circumstances, out of concern for my child’s
welfare, I might be sensible to conform to my neighbor’s behavior regarding
the treatment of children, especially if I am ill-informed and in search of guid-
ance. There are no rules as such that I follow. Rather, I observe her behavior
and conform to it. For example, if she talks to her young infant a lot in the
backyard, I may take this as evidence that this is a preferred form of behavior.
If she reprimands her toddler with a harsh tone of voice or an occasional mild
swat, I may take this as acceptable behavior.
    These are examples of conforming behavior. I do what my neighbor does
because she does it. It is nonstrategic, as the outcome I wish to produce is
not dependent on any choice of hers. And it is an outcome-oriented moral act
because I act in order to promote a good outcome for another. As it stands,
this is an example of a single act of morally motivated conformity in a non-
strategic situation. It is not conforming to a norm but rather to the behavior of
a single person. However, as discussed in more detail in Chapter Two, similar
conforming acts might be performed by other parents in the neighborhood, also
in response to the behavior of the respected child psychologist and also out of
concern for their children’s welfare. In such a manner, a norm may develop.
One would no longer be conforming to a person but to a norm.
    The second example deals with norms that may arise among those concerned
for the environment. It takes a lot of information to determine the consequences
of certain actions. Not all those with the desire to be environmentally consci-
entious should take it upon themselves to get the required information to make
the most environmentally friendly choices. Better if the behavior of experts,
and those in one’s circle who are most expert, are imitated. Needless to say, it
is also good if experts disseminate spoken and written directives, but the two
processes are complimentary and mutually reinforcing. For example, paper-
recycling plants are major producers of pollutants. How is one to know that, all
things considered, it is better for the environment to recycle than not recycle
paper? It is not economical for each person who is morally motivated to be en-
vironmentally conscientious to seek out the detailed information on such issues
as the amount of pollutants produced by paper-recycling plants. Instead, such
people are better off imitating the practices of the environmental cognoscente
as to whether paper products are best recycled.
    These last two examples are intended to show that conformity to norms
to save on information costs is in the spirit of outcome-oriented morality.
We see that when norms are present, moral actors may often desire to con-
form to them rather than determine the best outcomes on their own by seek-
ing more information. It has now been shown that conformity to norms is in
the spirit of outcome-oriented moral norms in both strategic and nonstrategic
130               the pattern conception of norms

   Two qualifying points need to be added about conformity as a means to
taking a moral short-cut. For simplicity, I have treated this phenomenon as if
it would occur only in nonstrategic contexts, but in fact one could also take a
moral short-cut and conform to the behavior of another in a strategic context.
For example, one could imitate the behavior of a friend who was taking part in a
coordination norm, and thus coordinate oneself with her. One may do so without
being conscious that one is taking part in a coordination norm. Second, other
cases we have been considering were pure in the sense that all the motivation was
of a type. With epistemic norms, however, it would be hard, if not impossible,
for all the participants to the norm to be taking a short-cut. Seemingly, someone
would have to have better knowledge to justify conformity if the norm is to stay
in existence.

                          II. Action-Oriented Norms
Not all action-oriented moral views sit equally comfortably with the notion of
conformity necessary for the existence of moral norms. As discussed earlier,
Kantian deontology seems ill-suited to an account of moral conformity. Perhaps
with enough squeezing and repackaging, a fit might be brought about. But in
the initial stages of inquiry, it is perhaps best to restrict discussion to the more
straightforward results that may be achieved. Accordingly, I will set the very
limited goal of demonstrating the initial plausibility of the thesis that norm
conformity may be reconciled to action-oriented views. If this can be established
satisfactorily, perhaps it will encourage in-depth examination of the particular
action-oriented views at issue and their relationship to norms. Before this is
attempted in detail for particular views, however, it is better to get an overall
picture of the likely success of the general project. To examine action-oriented
views at a sufficiently general level, I will take these views to be of two basic
sorts: rule views and virtue views.5 Not all nonconsequentialist views fit neatly
into either side of this partition. But many do, and, for simplicity, these will be
the concern here.
   Rule views tell agents to act according to certain rules. These rules can be
justified in a variety of ways: because they are derived by moral intuition; or
because they pass the test of the Categorical Imperative; or because they are
consented to or could be consented to; or because they issue from an authority
of one sort or another, such as a deity, or an elected governing body. Virtue
views, on the other hand, tell one to become virtuous. These views are less
common and do not appear in the wide variety that rule views do. For the most
part, I will not be concerned with the subtle differences that distinguish either
rule or virtue views. Rather, the concern is to see whether normative views of
these sorts, taken generally, are reconcilable with conformity.
   In addition, I will be interested in looking at views that can only be called
moral in the descriptive sense of the term. These views may not be capable of
                             Critical Moral Norms                             131

justification, but this does not gainsay the fact that they may command wide
allegiance. The concern here is whether conformity makes sense on these views,
not whether these views are ultimately defensible.6

                     A. Action-Oriented Epistemic Norms
This subsection examines epistemic norms and the following subsection
examines strategic norms.

1. divine commands. A divine command theory, as I shall understand it,
is a theory that holds that the source of morality is divine revelation in the
form of commands. Theories of this sort are action guiding in that the com-
mands tell one how to act, not which outcomes to seek. Though it may be
possible for individuals to receive their morality in this manner by means of
direct revelation, I will consider divine command theory in its usual context, that
is, as applying to religious groups. In the following discussion, we will see that
whether divine commands lead to norms depends on a consideration external to
the (first-order) divine commands themselves, namely, (second-order) religious
doctrine regarding their proper application to concrete cases. This can be seen
by contrasting the following cases.
    Imagine a religious group whose morality is governed by a set of divine
commands that are written down in the Holy Book. Because these commands
are pithy statements and because the world is complex, adherents to the faith
are often unsure how to apply particular commands to particular circumstances.
Imagine further that the group is splintered into two sects, the Individualist
Interpretation (I.I.) sect and the Authoritative Interpretation (A.I.) sect. Those
in the I.I. sect are instructed to determine for themselves how to interpret all
ambiguous situations by returning to the Holy Book and examining it for clues.
For this group, it makes no difference in determining how to apply a command
that others apply it in some particular manner, as individual interpretation is
the path to the correct answer. Those in the A.I. sect, on the other hand, are
told that interpreting the Holy Book is a complicated matter suited only to
church authorities. Thus, they are instructed to follow the extant interpretations
as captured in the officially sanctioned patterns of behavior monitored by the
    Under these conditions, the A.I. sect will tend to form religious norms
whereas the I.I. sect will not. In the A.I. sect, there will be patterns of be-
havior that are endorsed by the religious authorities. When an individual wants
to know how to follow a command, she will be told to do as other members of
the group do in like circumstances. For example, suppose one of the commands
is, Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Suppose an individual in each sect
is wondering whether it would violate this command to keep her convenience
store open on Sundays. In the A.I. sect, she will know that this question may
132               the pattern conception of norms

be answered by looking at what others in the sect are doing (assuming she has
reason to believe the others are faithful). Suppose there are four other members
of the sect who own convenience stores and all of them keep their stores open
on Sundays. She might reasonably conclude then that were she to keep her store
open, it would not violate a divine command.
    The member of the I.I. sect, on the other hand, will read the Holy Book and
follow her conscience. She may determine that it does not violate the command
to keep her store open. Further, suppose that the other members of her sect
who own convenience stores independently make the same determination. The
difference between this scenario and the preceding one is that the pattern of
behavior in the A.I. sect will count as a norm on my definition but not the pattern
in the I.I. sect. Each is a pattern of rationally governed behavior instantiated in a
group. It is a pattern of behavior, as all agents in like circumstances act in a like
manner. The behavior is rationally governed because each of the constitutive
acts is done from the motive of satisfying a divine command. The difference is
that in the A.I. sect, the pattern is maintained as the result of agents conforming
to the behavior of other agents in like circumstances, whereas in the I.I. sect,
the pattern is not maintained as the result of conformity; it just so happens that
each agent in similar circumstances acts in the same manner, thus resulting in
a pattern. This would count as a bird’s-eye-view pattern. From above, one can
detect a pattern, but it does not result from agents on the ground acting in a
concerted manner. The first pattern of behavior is maintained by conformity,
and the second is not. Accordingly, the first is a religious moral norm and the
second is not.
    We see that a religious morality consisting of divine commands may lead
to moral norms, but it need not. I have not actually shown how norms might
emerge under such a regime, but rather how they might be maintained. In
this example, the maintenance is due to a subsidiary doctrine regarding the
proper interpretation and application of the commands. In simple cases, such
as the foregoing, an emergence account might not be too difficult. Imagine, for
example, that there was a time when no one in the A.I. sect owned a convenience
store. The first member to acquire one could not then look to the extant patterns
of the sect to determine the proper interpretation of the command regarding the
Sabbath. Let us suppose that in such cases, the church-ordained procedure is
that members appeal to the church council for an interpretation of the divine
will. But after this first decision, later members with convenience stores will
not have to appeal to the council as they will have the behavior of others to
follow. In such a manner, a religious norm may emerge.
    This scenario illustrates the manner in which conformity to norms may be
a plausible feature of a divine command theory. Conformity of this sort is best
placed in the category of epistemic conformity. One conforms to the behavior
of others, not for strategic reasons, but because acting in a particular manner
conveys information as to why one would be moral to act in a like manner.7
                              Critical Moral Norms                             133

2. free-floating moral rules. The divine commands just examined
have their source or authority in a deity. Next, consider rules at the opposite end
of the extreme, those with no obvious source or authority. I will call these free-
floating rules. There are rules current in subcultures or across the culture that are
not connected in any direct and systematic manner with other rules.8 Examples
are the following: Be patriotic, Be true to your school, or the prescriptions
hidden in the seemingly unprescriptive phrases, A friend in need is a friend
indeed, and Charity begins at home. These are prescriptions that one might
hear in certain situations offered as advice for action. Our normative world
abounds with such free-floating rules or prescriptions. Though such rules might
be made to fit into more theoretically coherent outlooks, it seems likely that,
for the mass of people, these rules function autonomously. We are in general a
fairly unsystematic jumble of normative pushes and pulls. This jumble has been
reified and sometimes legitimated with the phrase common-sense morality. But
this is misleading. Talk of a morality of common sense makes it sound as if
there is a unified view, when in fact there does not seem to be one. Philosophers
downplay the extent to which people can see particular rules as worthy of their
moral allegiance without understanding how they fit into a larger, unified view.
    Earlier we saw that conformity is only contingently a part of rule-following
systems such as found in divine command theory. The contingent factor that
was present in addition to the (first-order) rules themselves was a (second-
order) rule regarding the proper application of the rules to particular instances.
A similar point appears to hold in the case of free-floating rules. In principle, it
could be that every individual applies the rule to particular cases on her own.
Alternatively, however, the behavior of others may play a significant role in
a particular agent’s determination of the correct application of a rule. Unlike
divine commands, conformity to free-floating rules is not ordained. What then
might lead a rule follower to conform?
    Consider an obvious answer. Conformity is often the best means by which
to apply rules. For it does seem like a natural and epistemically reasonable
procedure to follow. One might initially suppose that because the actual content
of a rule is often minimal, one will necessarily need additional guidance for
its application. So why not draw guidance from conformity? But, on the other
hand, if the rule does not precisely specify behavior, it may just mean that there
is some latitude inherent in the application of the rule. One may look to others
to see what they are doing, but the rule is also minimal for them, so there is not
really any reason to suppose that they apply it better.
    What in fact often seems to happen is that if a standard interpretation comes
about (for whatever reason), it then takes on a certain epistemological authority.
There seems to be a background principle at work that one should not chal-
lenge a status quo interpretation without a reason. However, this does not imply
that conformity to the pattern as such is demanded. For one can always argue
against one’s community that, contrary to appearances, what one is doing really
134               the pattern conception of norms

does follow the rule. For example, the rule, Be patriotic, may be prevalent in
a community, and it may be generally taken to imply, Buy American. There
might, for example, be a norm against buying foreign automobiles. One might
argue against one’s community on economic grounds that buying foreign au-
tomobiles is really not unpatriotic. The point is that conformity to the rule, not
the behavior as such is prescribed. Otherwise it would never be possible to go
against the norm for behavior and claim that the rule really should allow it.9
    The following appears to be at work in conformity to free-floating rules.
When there is consensus in a community about the application of a rule, people
will be pressured to interpret the rule in the standard manner. A reasonable moral
justification for this pressure can be presented. In the absence of an argument
to the contrary as to why her interpretation is to be preferred, a person has no
reason to suppose that the prevalent interpretation is not acceptable, and the
community will have a general reason to suppose that often self-interest is at
least a partial motivation for the desire to deviate. For example, the rule, Be
true to your school, may have different interpretations at different schools. At
school A the rule might be commonly interpreted to prohibit athletes from dating
athletes from other schools, while at school B the rule might be interpreted as
not prohibiting this. At school A, if it is really the rule, Be true to your school,
that is what people believe in, and not just certain behavior, as such, then the
students should be open to reasoned arguments as to why a particular case of
dating an athlete from another school is not a case of being untrue to one’s
school. But in the absence of such an argument, the linguistic community at the
school may contend that the person has no reason to think her interpretation
of the rule’s application is better than the status quo interpretation. The person
is not making a moral error but an epistemological error of contravening an
accepted application of a concept without any ground to do so. They may say
to her, “This is the accepted meaning of the rule, what grounds do you have for
offering a differing interpretation?”
    What are the implications of this discussion for the question of conformity?
Recall that we are trying to determine whether the conformity required for epis-
temic norms is in the spirit of free-floating rules. It appears that there may exist
an underlying epistemological dictate to conform to the common interpretation
of rules as instantiated in behavior unless one can give a defensible reason for
relying on one’s own interpretation instead. I am not necessarily endorsing this
epistemological principle about rule interpretation, rather I am suggesting that
this is one plausible way of understanding how people actually behave. On such
a view, conformity has nothing to do with free-floating rules as such. Rather,
conforming to the status quo interpretations of such rules is dictated by an un-
derlying epistemic principle that others accept and enforce. But enforcement is
not necessary. For only the self-interested heed rules for their own benefit. One
might genuinely accept the epistemological principle along with one’s fellows.
In fact, if sanctions are the reason one conforms, then this seems like a case
                              Critical Moral Norms                               135

in which conformity may not be in the spirit of the theory. If one does not ac-
cept the epistemic principle in good conscience, one has no reason to conform.
Thus, conforming to avoid sanctions is conforming for the wrong reason. One
should act out of allegiance to the free-floating rule based on the status quo
interpretation, not out of the motivation to avoid sanctioning.
    Compare this situation to that of divine commands. There is nothing about
the commands themselves that necessitates conforming to the interpretations
of others. Rather, what matters are the background interpretative principles of
the particular sects. In the I.I. sect individualistic interpretation is encouraged,
while it is prohibited in the A.I. sect. Both sects share the feature that, due to
the existence of an accepted church hierarchy, the laity accept as gospel what-
ever underlying interpretative rules they receive. Thus, the I.I. sect interprets
particular rules on their own because this is the rule, and the A.I. sect conforms
to inscrutable interpretations because this is the rule.
    In the case of free-floating rules, there are no experts to supply second-order
rules for interpreting the rules. There are local authorities but nothing as well
structured as a church hierarchy. For example, the head of the local Veterans of
Foreign Wars hall may be taken as a local authority on patriotism, or the head
of the pep squad may be taken as an authority on school loyalty, but neither of
them appear to carry the same weight as the church high command. It seems
possible, in principle, that either of the second-order interpretative rules could
be in force in a community, even in the absence of an established hierarchy.
    A background epistemic principle could exist that dictates compliance to
the local authority’s interpretations, or a background epistemic principle could
dictate individualistic interpretation. Neither of these situations seems to hold,
however. Rather, there appears to be a background epistemic principle that
dictates conformity unless one can provide reasons for overriding the status
quo interpretation. It is interesting to note that there could exist a third religious
sect in which this epistemic principle is accepted.
    It should be clear why conformity of the sort discussed in the last paragraphs
should count as nonstrategic. Others performing an action does not increase
one’s payoffs for doing so. Rather one conforms because the behavior of others
is good evidence as to the best application of the rule. Thus, this conformity is
aptly characterized as epistemic.
    In summary, we have seen that rule followers may become epistemic norm
conformers for two reasons. Rule followers may look to norms for information
about the authoritative application of rules, or they may use the norms to glean
information about the consensus application of the rules. What the two cases
have in common is that the extant norms carry information relevant to the best
application of the rules. Although I will not consider the matter here, it would
seem on the face of it that analogous claims may hold for other moral views that
emphasize rules. For all rule-following accounts face the problem of accounting
for the application of the rules.10
136               the pattern conception of norms

3. virtuous conformity to epistemic norms. Next to be examined
are instances of virtuous conformity to norms for epistemic reasons. Consider
the following. Though some find the idea paradoxical, a standard claim of
virtue theory is that you may learn what virtue is by observing the behavior
of the virtuous.11 What is the implication for practical reason of this epistemic
claim? One plausible implication is that, if you want to be virtuous, act as
the virtuous act. Here, in this single step, is the basic building block out of
which an account of virtuous epistemic norms can be constructed. For what we
seem to have is a moral reason why a virtuous person would be motivated to
conform to the behavior of an accomplished person of virtue. It does not take
much imagination to see how imitation of this sort might lead to a large-scale
virtuous norm. For with each new imitator, the group grows in size and temporal
    The following objection might be raised to the idea that a virtuous norm
may grow through imitation. Such imitative behavior should not count as truly
virtuous behavior because the imitator or conformer does not really act from an
understanding of the requirements of virtue but rather from rote imitation. This
objection, however, can be answered. Another widely held view in virtue theory
is that, through practicing virtue, one may become virtuous. By adopting the
behavior to the best extent possible, you may eventually come to see why the
behavior is intrinsically appropriate. For example, if you were brought up in a
family of liars but now believe that being honest would be better, if you make
yourself refrain from lying, you may come to see over time why honesty is a
virtue and thus come naturally to desire it. By imitation of virtuous behavior,
you will come to understand what virtuousness is all about; consequently, your
continued conformity will be informed, that is, motivated epistemically and not
just causally by the requirements of virtue.
    A second objection, however, arises at this stage. Once you become a per-
son of accomplished virtue, conformity is no longer necessary. This objection
seems legitimate, but it must also be taken into account that because we lack
omniscience, even after one has attained a virtuous state, it will be advisable to
look to what others are doing as a way of assuring oneself of one’s judgment
regarding particular modes of behavior. For example, honesty is a virtue, but
one can be too honest, hurting others’ feelings by providing too much infor-
mation. Virtue might be better served by imitating the behavior of those with
a more subtle understanding of how to handle such delicate situations. Thus,
conformity still has a role to play.
    It might be virtuous, then, to imitate the behavior of the virtuous as a means
to becoming virtuous. The fact that people, who to all appearances are virtuous,
act in a certain manner carries information about behavior of this sort, making
conformity to their actions morally plausible. This is analogous to the rule
follower who takes the behavior of others as evidence for the proper application
of rules. Both cases, in turn, are analogous to the egoist or the consequentialist
                              Critical Moral Norms                             137

who conforms to norms to save on calculation costs. In all these cases, the fact
that certain others are performing a type of action serves as evidence that it
would also be right to perform this action oneself.

          B. Action-Oriented Conformity in Strategic Circumstances
The examples considered in the previous section were instances of conformity
by action-oriented moral theorists for epistemic reasons in nonstrategic con-
texts. The question remains: Are strategic norms possible in rule-following
theory and virtue theory? Prima facie, one might think the answer would be
no. When one reasons strategically, one takes into consideration the reasoning
of others to determine how to act. Based on how one thinks they will act, one
does so because outcomes that are jointly determined are at stake. Thus, these
outcomes seem to drive the whole process. In contrast, action-oriented theorists
focus on the quality of actions not the consequences that flow from those ac-
tions, and so their behavior would seem by definition to be nonstrategic. Despite
this appearance, however, there is nothing in the notion of strategic action per
se that is outcome oriented. It is just that up until now, only outcome-oriented
theorists have worried about strategic action.
   Strategic action requires that the right action depend on the behavior of
others. There appears to be no reason in principle why action-oriented views
cannot accept this condition. Some appear to reject it. For example, Kant is
often interpreted as thinking that one should follow actions that accord with the
moral law regardless of whether others are. But there is no reason to suppose
that all action-oriented views need make this claim. Those that do not may lead
to what I will call strategic coordination.

1. strategic coordination. One can often best see how the correctness
of one’s actions depends on what others in the group are doing by looking at what
happens when someone from another group migrates into the first group. For
example, where I grew up, people who take driver’s training are taught to leave a
distance of one car length between vehicles for each ten miles per hour of speed
being traveled. One is taught that this is the safe thing to do. In all naturalness,
this would be called a rule of safe driving, and on most moral theories, it would
count as a moral rule, as safe driving is surely a moral concern. Alternatively,
it could be said that being a safe driver is a sort of virtuous behavior. In either
case, the behavior consistent with these types of theories need not be outcome
oriented. One might, for example, think it required to sometimes drive safely
even when it would maximize utility not to.
    With the example of keeping a proper distance between moving cars, notice
what happens when you try to leave the requisite amount of car lengths in a
metropolitan area in which such behavior is not the norm. It will be impossible
to act in this manner because inevitably a car will cut in front of your vehicle
138               the pattern conception of norms

to fill in the open space ahead. If you slow down in order to reopen the space,
it will again be filled. The fact that others are not conforming to the norm will
make it impossible for you to do so. Still worse, the very attempt will cause
you to be a hazard on the road because slowing down to create a space will
set in place a chain reaction such that those behind must either slow down or
change lanes. In this example, the proper distance to keep between your car
and the car ahead is the amount of space that is the local norm. More space and
people will try to fill it; less space and you risk an accident. Thus, the behavior
of the virtuous or rule-abiding person is dictated by whatever behavior is the
norm.12 Just to be clear that there is not something special about norms of the
road, notice that other norms of the road do not have this strategic structure.
For example, it is virtuous to dim your lights when passing a car regardless of
whether others are doing the same.
    This example is best seen as a virtue or rule that has a consequentialist com-
ponent. What really drives the moral principle is a concern for good outcomes,
that is, safety on the road as a means to preventing accidents. This is of course
perfectly acceptable to deontological theories, which clearly may have conse-
quentialist components. It is just that deontological theories cannot be purely
consequentialist. Once we realize that though this virtue or rule arises from
within an action-oriented perspective, it nonetheless has a strongly consequen-
tialist component, we should not be surprised that the right action might be
strategically determined.
    Yet more interesting is the issue of whether there may be strategic action-
oriented behavior in cases that are nonconsequentialist. The answer is yes. For
example, what counts as friendliness will depend on what others are doing.
In many small towns, it is the norm for people who do not know one an-
other to have eye contact or strike up conversations when encountering one
another. For instance, people from small towns may feel uncomfortable with
strangers in elevators or in waiting rooms unless they strike up a conversation
or at least have eye contact. Not to be open to conversation or eye contact
is to be unfriendly, whereas, this is not true, or less so, generally speaking,
in cities.
    Consider a second example. In small towns, there has apparently long existed
a gender-differentiated norm that dictates that it is more acceptable for women
to interact with children who are not known to them than for men to do so. I have
been told that in the past women were to some extent normatively encouraged to
engage children in conversation and actively look out for their welfare in small
ways. Now, however, perhaps in substantial part due to the media coverage of
child abductions, the norm has changed such that it is no longer the norm to
engage children in this manner.
    Note that what the rule-following or virtuous person should do depends to
some extent on the norm in the group. Why would it no longer be friendly to talk
to strange children? The reason seems roughly to be that children are taught
                              Critical Moral Norms                               139

to resist such interaction. If there is a real or perceived danger of molesters,
kidnappers, and the like, then parents may be reasonable in not wanting their
children to be in the position of judging who it is safe to talk to and who it is not.
Better not to talk to strangers. But it is not that one will never engage children
in such conversation. Rather one will tend to do so in the situations in which
others are doing so. The current situation seems to permit such discourse when
parents are present, as for example in a supermarket line. Perhaps in small and
isolated towns, the old, more friendly norm still holds. When there, if you do
not follow it, others will think you unfriendly. They will be correct, though you
are not to blame. In this example, it may be that no one is.
    Conversely, small town people may be perceived as overly friendly when
they come to the city. A person brought up to think that engaging strangers
in small talk is part of the virtue of friendliness will soon come to see that urban
denizens do not feel the same way. One will not be experienced as friendly
but rather as intrusive and perhaps even threatening. Still, one will be within
one’s normative wherewithal in sometimes attempting to engage strangers in
conversation. Roughly, one will tend to have those conversations permitted
by the norm. For example, it has been my experience that in New York it
is normatively permissible, though still not the prevailing practice, to engage
strangers who live in one’s building in conversation.
    In these examples, which contrast norms from towns to cities, the moral
quality of the act varies depending on what others are doing. Your act will be a
friendly act only to the extent that it coincides with the like acts of others. The
examples are not consequentialist in nature as was the case in the example of the
proper distance to maintain on freeways. One need not be friendly to promote
some further end. Friendliness may be thought to be morally desirable on its
own terms. Accordingly, these are examples of action-oriented behavior for
which the rightness is strategically determined and yet the promotion of good
outcomes is not a driving motivation.
    Consider the following examples of norms that vary from traditional to
progressive subcultures. The practices of men opening doors for women, and
both men and women referring to women as ladies are endorsed in traditional
culture but rejected by progressive culture. Whether one goes from the progres-
sive to the traditional culture or from the traditional to the progressive culture,
if one is well-mannered (and manners are fairly seen as moral rules or char-
acter dispositions), one’s reflections on what is the proper action will to some
extent be affected by a consideration of what is considered to be the proper
action in the context in which one is presently situated. To go against the norm
may offend others or inadvertently cause doors to be slammed in one’s face.
Regardless of what one ends up doing, in general there will be a normative pull
in the direction of the instantiated norm. In these examples, politeness is strate-
gically determined. What counts as the polite act will depend on what others are
140               the pattern conception of norms

    The previous examples apply either to virtue theory or rule views. The follow-
ing example is geared more specifically toward normative views that emphasize
the importance of autonomy. Consider the norm regarding the practice of let-
ting friends drive under the influence of alcohol. There is an effort currently
in our culture to change this norm, as witnessed by the ad campaign with the
slogan, Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. Unfortunately, the very need for
the slogan is evidence of the fact that it is more prescriptive than descriptive.
    Suppose you are a person who believes in respecting the autonomy of others
and a friend is about to leave your house under the influence of alcohol. Roughly
the following competing considerations enter into your reasoning. On the one
hand, there is the consideration of safety, both that of your friend and of other
motorists. This consideration weighs strongly in favor of intervention. On the
other hand, there is the consideration of respect for the friend’s autonomy and
good judgment. There is a strong norm in this culture against paternalism. To
offer unwanted advice is in a sense to tell the friend that you have better judgment
than she. If your friend is strongly intoxicated, the advice might perhaps be
offered without imparting this implication. But the case I am discussing is
one of mild inebriation; it would exaggerate the case to claim that the friend’s
rational faculties are impaired to such an extent that you would not be overriding
her autonomy in attempting to intervene in any strong way. Thus, you are pulled
in two directions.
    Schematically, we can think of autonomy at one end of a continuum and
concern at the other end. The level of inebriation will determine where on the
continuum the person is in your mind. If she is very inebriated, she will be closer
to the concern end of the continuum, and if she is hardly inebriated, she will
be closer to the autonomy end. Let us assume that in a particular culture there
is a level of inebriation (a point on the continuum) after which the norm would
dictate concerned intervention. This level will vary from culture to culture and
within subcultures. For example, one might reasonably guess that the level at
which one could expect intervention among a group of moral theorists is much
lower than among a group of members of the National Rifle Association or
other groups known for their strong stand on individualism. The point I wish
to make is that the norm extant in the culture will to some extent determine
(in the view of most people) whether one should intervene. The point of the
ad campaign is to move the general level such that it will take less amount of
concern to tip the scale against autonomy toward intervention.13
    In the preceding examples, I have sought to show that, in certain types of
situations, the behavior of others will exert a certain gravity, causing one’s own
action to be pulled in the direction of theirs, that is, to conform to theirs. The
examples considered involved friendliness, politeness, and autonomy. In each
case, the right action was seen to be strategically affected by the behavior of
others. The following normative view takes this rationale for conformity to an
                                Critical Moral Norms                                 141

2. traditionalism. Traditionalism, as it will here be understood, is the
view that one should do what others have done in similar circumstances in
the past. Such acts are clear-cut cases of acts that are proper not because of
their instrumental role but because of the intrinsic features of the act. Given
that others have acted in some specific manner in the past, the proper act must
share the specific features of the earlier acts. Thus, the character of the act
itself matters in determining its correctness. Patterns of behavior made up of
traditionalist acts may not seem fitting subjects for a discussion on moral norms
as there seems nothing especially moral about them. But recall that we are
working with a broad definition of the moral, one that includes everyday notions
of morality, even if they do not necessarily withstand the scrutiny of moral
    The following characterization of tradition by W. R. Sorley lends weight to
the claim that the everyday version of traditionalism has some currency.
There is a set of customs . . . and a set of beliefs intermingled with the customs; and to
these he feels himself bound, and is bound, to conform. All this may be called his social
heritage; it has been handed down to him from his elders; its source, that is to say, is
tradition, and it comes to him with authority.14

This passage characterizes the basic elements of tradition as a set of customs
and beliefs handed down by authority. There is no explicit mention of the
justification for the customs and beliefs, although “authority” is ambiguous in
this respect.
    On any plausible view, the normative pull of tradition is morally more com-
plex than requiring blind conformity to the past. Yet the everyday version of
the traditionalist prescription may capture one piece of the confused mosaic
of ought-claims that make up the everyday normative world we inhabit. The
phrase, You will do it that way because that’s the way its always been done,
is, after all, sometimes offered as a reason for action. Thus, at a basic level,
tradition, or the normative view I call traditionalism, may be said to exert a
normative force to do acts of type X in circumstances Y simply because one’s
forebears did acts of type X in circumstances Y.
    The question arises, what do acts dictated by tradition have to do with the
study of conformity? The answer is that it is plausible to suppose that they
may lead to norms. Notice that, in the case of the traditionalist prescription, the
structure of the prescription itself seems to necessitate that acting in accordance
with the prescription will result in norms. For the prescription tells one to do
what has been done in the past in similar circumstances. But this is simply a
prescription for conformity. The traditionalist prescription is then by its very
nature norm producing, or at any rate norm maintaining. In some of the previ-
ous examples, conformity was justified as an informational short-cut, but with
tradition, conformity is not a shortcut but a destination; hence, it is closer to
deontological and virtue-theoretic approaches than to teleological approaches.
142               the pattern conception of norms

3. sanction-driven conformity. Sanction-driven moral norms may also
exist among action-oriented theorists. Initially, it is puzzling how sanctions
could cause action-oriented moral theorists to alter their behavior in a manner
necessary for the existence of sanction-driven moral norms. Sanction-driven
norms are such that agents would not conform were it not for the sanctions.
Sanctions affect the cost of actions. Agents who previously did not want to con-
form may now want to because nonconformity has been made more expensive.
This makes it sound as if these agents perform cost–benefit calculations before
acting, which surely does not sound in the spirit of action-oriented moral views.
In spite of this initial appearance, however, conformity to sanction-driven norms
is in the spirit of action-oriented moral views.
    In the previous section, we saw that action-oriented views sometimes contain
consequentialist components. These mixed views were the most straightforward
cases in which strategic factors come into play. Mixed theories that contain
consequentialist components, and particularly examples in which only a con-
sequentialist rule with a restricted scope is engaged, will be the best place to
start in looking for cases where sanctions may lead to norms for action-oriented
moral actors.
    For example, it may be a principle of a group that one should show favor to-
ward other members of the group relative to nonmembers. Among the members
of a religious sect, for instance, it may be decreed that other members of the
sect, even if strangers, should be shown favor over nonmembers. If members of
this sect are hegemonic in a political community, this principle might come to
be interpreted as meaning that members of this sect should be favored in hiring
in the public sector. This is an example of a prescribed form of behavior that is
largely consequentialist, although it may be part of a nonconsequentialist moral
outlook, as for example, a divine command view. It is consequentialist because
there is nothing intrinsically special about the act of showing favoritism in hir-
ing. Rather, what matters is that showing favoritism is a means to promoting
the interests of the members of one’s sect.
    Because this behavior is consequentialist in inspiration, it appears especially
susceptible to alteration by the application of sanctions. For example, suppose
the group has hegemony over one of the states of a federation, but not over the
federation as a whole. Suppose further that a federal court or national legislature
has declared that favoritism in hiring is illegal and that those who practice it
are subject to sanctions. This may change the behavior in the state with the
hegemonic group into one of impartiality in public sector hiring. The resulting
regularity of behavior would appear to be a sanction-driven norm because the
change in behavior is motivated by a desire to avoid sanctions. Contrary to
appearances, however, this does not count as a sanction-driven norm because the
conformity is not motivated by sanctions. Each bureaucrat stops the favoritism
regardless of what others are doing. The behavior happens to fit into a regularity,
but each act is not at all caused by other acts of a similar type.
                              Critical Moral Norms                             143

    A simple example that fits this description follows. Imagine a number of
religious groups that all hold to the rule, Help members of your own church.
This rule is consequentialist in its inspiration and its effect even though it is
part of a deontological system. It has a restricted scope in that the maximization
principle applies to only a subset of the population. These groups might find it
in their interest to cooperate on a new rule that required impartial treatment of
all members of the community. In other words, one could not help a member of
one’s own congregation if a member of another congregation could be helped
to a greater extent. This rule might be agreed upon by all the groups as a
means to satisfy the original rule, as it might be that by all taking part in the
new rule, each is actually more effective at aiding the members of her own
congregation. In addition, it might take a sanctioning mechanism to make the
new rule effective. This example would count as sanction-driven conformity.
The members of the various groups conform to the norm to avoid sanctions.
Their behavior is conforming behavior in that part of the explanation for their
behavior is the behavior of others. For if others were not acting in a like manner,
the sanctioning scheme would not be in place.
    The next question is whether sanctions might cause conformity for actions
that are not importantly consequentialist. An often cited type of behavior that is
squarely deontologically justified is that of not taking the life of an innocent per-
son. For certain deontologically oriented moral actors, it may always be wrong
to take the life of an innocent person, no matter what the consequences. For
other deontologists, however, there may be situations in which the potentially
negative consequences may be so significant that the stricture against killing is
trumped. If one is a nonabsolutist of this sort, it may be possible to influence
one’s behavior by the imposition of sanctions.
    For example, it is sometimes said that early Christians had an absolute pro-
hibition against killing, even in war.15 Suppose the Romans had threatened the
Christians saying that unless the Christians fought alongside the Romans, inno-
cent Christians would be killed. Suppose the Romans calculated how many of
the enemy would be killed on average by each Christian serving in the army and
declared that for each of these potential deaths, the Romans would kill twenty
innocent Christians as a sanction against the Christian unwillingness to serve.
    Under such conditions, it may become a norm among the Christians to serve
in the Roman army. This will count as a sanction-driven norm, depending on
how the situation is described. If each Christian decides on his own to serve
as a result of the threatened sanctions to the group, the requisite conformity
is not present. But serving in the army under these conditions may become a
normatively governed practice, maintained by conformity and encouraged by
official teachings and doctrine.
    Essentially, this same distinction was discussed earlier with the distinction
between the Individual Interpretation sect and the Accepted Interpretation sect.
In the case of the A.I. sect, conformity is properly said to be present because
144               the pattern conception of norms

the individual applications of rules take place after consulting a second-order
interpretative rule. Suppose the Christian sect in the current example has such
a second-order interpretative rule. Individuals do not interpret the rule, Do not
kill, on their own but rather conform to the dictates of the church hierarchy as
to how this rule shall apply. The circumstance in question is one in which by
refusing to kill one innocent person, twenty innocent persons will be killed.
Suppose that, in reaction to the sanction, the church decides that serving in the
Roman army is the morally appropriate action.
     In the actual case, the rule against killing was reinterpreted so as to no longer
include killing in just wars. Suppose instead that the church determined that such
killing was still proscribed by the rule, but allowable under the circumstances;
the wrong being outweighted by the consequentialist considerations. Hereafter,
the laity conform to the church-sanctioned norm that Christians are to serve
in the Roman army. In such a case, a sanction-driven norm is present, although
it is sanction driven only at a second remove. The sanctions cause the individuals
to conform to a norm to which they otherwise would not, but the causal path
is that the Roman application of sanctions causes the Christians to promote
conformity and sanction nonconformity to the laity.
     Finally, the question arises, can there be cases of sanction-driven norms
among moral absolutists who are not at all susceptible to countervailing con-
siderations of consequences? It appears that, even in these cases, something
like sanction-driven norms may be possible. We must expand the notion of a
sanction-driven norm, however: there is a more general feature of such situa-
tions than is captured by a consideration of sanctions per se. It may be the case
that one can alter the environment in which the moral behavior arises so as to
alter the moral quality of the action. It turns out that sanctions are but one means
of altering the moral quality of an action.
     Consider the action-oriented theorist who believes in respect for the law.
A situation might arise in which behavior that accords with a norm that this
type of moral actor thinks is morally required behavior may become illegal due
to a change in the law. For example, the Fugitive Slave Law may have made
the virtuous behavior of aiding fugitive slaves morally out of bounds for some.
Suppose a group of individuals existed who had previously had a group norm to
aid fugitive slaves, but who changed norms as a result of the change in the law.
Suppose that they were not afraid of being sanctioned by the law, but rather,
they believed in respect for the law as a trump against most other considerations,
even ones as weighty as aiding fugitive slaves.
     In such a case, a norm against aiding fugitive slaves might be established
among those who previously had supported such behavior. It would not be
established as a result of sanctions, but rather as a result of a more general
phenomenon. The more general feature is that the environment is changed in
some manner that has the effect of altering the moral worth of the act types
that made up the previous norm. Norms brought about in such a manner might
                             Critical Moral Norms                              145

be called extrinsically imposed norms, in contrast to intrinsically generated
norms, for which conformity comes about as a result of features intrinsic to the
situation. With intrinsic norms, no one needs to attempt to alter the situation in
some manner to bring about conformity because the behavior occurs naturally
given the other features of the situation already present.
    Extrinsic norms are like sanction-driven norms in that an external influence
brings about conformity that would otherwise not be forthcoming. Sanctions
bring about conformity by affecting the costs and benefits of performing certain
actions. But this is only one of a variety of means of affecting the surrounding
conditions of an act to affect the moral quality of the act. In the example of
making aid to fugitive slaves illegal, the moral quality of the act is not affected
by means of altering the payoff structure. Rather, the act of aiding slaves itself
is no longer a morally desirable action, all things considered, in a regime in
which such actions are illegal.
    In this example, the requisite conformity condition is met only if we as-
sume that the law is passed only because the authorities expect a high level
of compliance. It cannot be maintained otherwise. Thus, one’s conformity is
indirectly the result of the conformity of others, in the sense that the law would
not continue to exist if not for their conformity. Thus, this is an example of an
unwelcome, externally driven norm.

For the study of norms, morality was seen to be usefully partitioned into
outcome-oriented and action-oriented views. First, universal and nonuniver-
sal outcome-oriented views were considered. Comparable to the case of self-
interested rationality in Chapter Two, there are three types of circumstance in
which conformity to norms may be moral from an outcome-oriented moral
point of view. The results are outcome-oriented coordination norms, epistemic
norms, and sanction-driven norms. Next, the trickier issue of whether confor-
mity could be made sense of on action-oriented moral views was considered.
The details of particular views were not considered. Instead, the two overar-
ching types of nonconsequentialist views, rule views and virtue views, were
examined. Prima facie, there were good reasons for being particularly suspi-
cious as to whether these outlooks could be made compatible with conformity
to norms. Despite initial appearances conformity was seen to be in the spirit
of these views for a variety of reasons. What is even more interesting is that
conformity will be justified in the same three types of circumstances as it was
for the egoist and the consequentialist, that is, action-oriented moral actors will
participate in coordination norms, epistemic norms, and sanction-driven norms.
Thus, we see that there is a compatibility, indeed a unity, between the ratio-
nal choice and moral-theoretic approaches and within different moral-theoretic
146               the pattern conception of norms

    This evaluation completes the present attempt to develop a philosophical
conception of norms. The first chapter rejected the received view of norms and
replaced it with a reformed view on which norms are patterns of normatively
governed behavior that are instantiated in groups and maintained by confor-
mity. Chapter Two demonstrated that the pattern conception did not fall prey to
the important criticism that conformity to norms violates the canon of method-
ological individualism. A tripartite typology of norms resulted from this ex-
amination. Chapter Three began the moral analysis of norms. Discussion was
limited to the utilitarian approach as it is consistent with the Hobbesian assump-
tion of narrow self-interest as the driving factor in human motivation. We saw
that utilitarians, if they are to best serve their critical normative goals, should
replace a rule conception of norms with a pattern conception. Chapter Four
then sought to reconcile the rational choice and moral-theoretic approaches.
We saw that by the light of ordinary morality, participation in certain rationally
governed practices may create sui generis emergent moral relationships. The
existence of these relationships was shown to be consistent with an account
that starts from a rational actor assumption. The blended approach was called
predominant egoism. Predominant egoism is not overly reductive in the way
that the narrow rational actor model is, but it is not a closet aspirational account
either. Rather, it represents the most realistic account of human motivation. I
argued that this account, in fact though not in name, is acceptable to a wide vari-
ety of theorists who have less disagreement with one another than is ordinarily
    This chapter completes the examination of the pattern conception of social
norms. In law, the past matters; what judges have done in the past matters to what
judges should do in the present in deciding cases. But what judges have done in
the past is not a straightforward matter that can be simply read off from the black-
letter case law. Rather, we in the present must interpret past legal decisions. And
part of doing this inevitably involves considering the normative elements that
were incorporated in the legal outcomes. This procedure involves providing
what I will refer to as a normative interpretation of particular legal outcomes.
Parts Two and Three of the book will perform normative interpretations of the
role of norms and customs in tort law generally, and in specific detail, with
regard to privacy in cyberspace.
                                    part two
                          NEGLIGENT NORMS

     Law embodies and enforces fundamental social norms, and it would be surprising
     to find that those norms were inconsistent with the society’s ethical system.†
                                                                      Richard Posner

†   Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of Law 23 (4th ed., 1992). This epigram expresses a deep
    truth about the relationship between social norms and the law. As will become clear by the end
    of Part Two, Judge Posner forgets this truth when he develops his own theory of norms and torts.
           The Traditional Rule of Custom

   In country life a multitude of acts are habitually committed that are technically
   trespasses. Persons walk, catch fish, pick berries, and gather nuts in alieno solo
   without strict right. Good-natured owners tolerate these practices until they be-
   come annoying or injurious, and then put a stop to them. Little practical inconve-
   nience results from the state of things, which the courts may well leave to regulate
                                                                 Albright v. Cortland

Part One developed the pattern conception of social norms. Part Two will apply
this framework in the context of tort law. This application will test the value
of the pattern conception; the more it illuminates tort law, the more valuable it
is proven to be. As discussed in the book’s Introduction, tort law is at the core
of a liberal theory of social order. Liberalism begins with a brute conception
of the intrinsic moral worth of the individual. From this starting point, the
theory of human rights and personal autonomy follow. Free people may do as
they please, so long as others are not injured in the process.2 When others are
injured, however, tort law may be implicated. As Part One indicated, free people
characteristically choose to conform to social norms. When they do, and when
others are injured in the process, meaningful solutions must take place at the
intersection of norms and torts.
    The present chapter begins the examination of the role of social norms in tort
law. The focus in this chapter is on the historical development of the concept
of legally valid custom, or what is sometimes referred to as the rule of custom.
The first section will begin at the beginning with a brief discussion of the
jurisprudence of custom. As will become clear, custom in the law is closely
related to the concept of a social norm.3 Essentially, a custom is a social practice
that is obligatory. Only these two features – practice and obligation – are found
in all cases that invoke custom. Section II will look more closely at the concept of
150                          negligent norms

legally valid custom, understood as obligatory social practices. Finally, Section
III will discuss the most significant historical example involving the rule of
custom – trespass norms and customary easements in land. The emergence of
easements will be seen to put the positive efficiency thesis to the test. I will
argue that customary easements are best explained as due in important part to a
normative impulse akin to induced detrimental reliance rather than due simply
to an impulse toward welfare maximization.
    The following five chapters will then examine the important and misunder-
stood role that customs play in modern negligence law. Chapters Seven through
Nine will consider custom’s potential to serve as a mechanism for welfare max-
imization. I will seek to determine which of the possible versions of the rule of
custom judges should choose when attempting to produce the most efficient out-
comes. Chapters Ten and Eleven will then engage in a normative interpretation
of the role of informal social norms with regard to the determination of liability.
I will argue that heterogeneous norms of ordinary jurors are in part constitutive
of the de facto liability standard is negligence. This finding gives additional
reason to doubt the adequacy of the traditional economic interpretation of tort.

                       I. The Jurisprudence of Custom
Historically, there have been two importantly different conceptions of custom.
On the older conception, customs of a certain sort were law themselves, so-
called customary law. Custom was the unwritten law, the so-called lexis non
scriptus, found in the practices of communities. Coke considered custom as one
of the points of the triad of English law, along with statutes and the common law.4
On the dominant modern conception, customs are not law in themselves but
rather potential sources of law. It is only when courts give judicial recognition
to these community practices that they become so-called valid custom.5
    This latter conception can be fairly understood as corresponding to a form
of positivist approach. The former conception can be understood as a form of
natural law approach. According to a standard positivist approach, a rule, no
matter how laudable, is not law unless it arises through an accepted process
of law making.6 It appears to be entailed by this conception that customs, no
matter how important to a group or how deeply felt their obligatory force, are not
law unless they have been made into law by an accepted law-creating process,
such as when a court recognizes a custom as valid.7 On a positivist approach,
then, there is no customary law per se, but rather informal customs and legally
validated customs. On a natural law approach, however, law and custom cannot
be so clearly distinguished, as law may be defined so as to include all rules
and practices of a group for which conformity is expected or required as one’s
    The relationship between custom and law has changed over time in a manner
not accounted for by either positivism or natural law theory. Early on, when there
                         The Traditional Rule of Custom                           151

was little enacted law, custom was clearly accepted as a type of law.9 Though
the idea of custom as law made sense in early English history, it no longer
describes the real judicial attitude toward customs, which are now typically
treated as “persuasive sources of law,” but not law itself.10
    Carleton Allen contends that valid custom is law.11 His main argument is
that when judges recognize a custom, it does not henceforth become law but is
recognized to have had legal force, that is, the judicial act does not give custom
legal force, it had it all along.12 Support for this view is found in the well-
known Tanistry Case.13 The opinion states: “A custom, in the intendment of
law, is such a usage as hath obtained the force of a law, and is in truth a binding
law to such particular places, persons and things which it concerns. . . . [I]t is
ius non scriptum.”14 To the contrary, Brown’s explanation of this phenomenon
is that customs, like many other legal rules, have retroactive force. The idea that
customs recognized by judges were law all along is, according to Brown, but a
legal fiction whereby judges mask the fact that they are making law.15
    It is not obvious what precisely is at issue in this debate as to the true relation
between law and custom. On one view, this is a jurisprudential debate for which
progress might be made by first arriving at a true understanding of law and then
determining law’s relation to custom. On another view, however, the issue is
ultimately one of the history and usage of the concepts law and custom. My
own view is that there is no deep, unchanging truth regarding the nature of
law. Law is not a natural kind like uranium or hydrogen with an ontological
status apart from the meaning people have given to the term and the particular
configuration of institutions people have built up that embody the term. Over
the course of its existence, a linguistic community plays a language game with
the word law, and thus it becomes culturally defined.16 There is no essential
core to the concept of law that need remain uniform from era to era or culture
to culture.
    The lack of an essential definition does not imply, however, that the meaning
of the term law, or its relationship to the term custom, are transparent. The
goal then is to determine the contingently created historical notion of law and
then further determine its relation to custom, also historically and culturally
determined. This may mean, for example, that the role custom has played in
the United States may differ from the role it has played in England. There
may be a strong family resemblance between these accounts of the relationship
between custom and law, but there is not necessarily an identity.17 It may make
sense to refer to customary law in the English system but refer to custom
as a source of law in the American system. For example, custom receives
constitutional recognition in England,18 while American courts have rejected
custom based on state constitutional principle.19
    As the positivist holds that customs do not acquire legal force until recog-
nized by judges, the crucial issue for the positivist is to specify the criteria
that entitle customs to legal recognition. For natural law theory, however, the
152                          negligent norms

question of criteria for legal recognition appears not to arise; customs need not
audition to become law as they are law already. But this appearance is deceiv-
ing. A custom, as the word is used in ordinary language, was not a custom in the
natural law theorist’s sense, unless it fulfilled certain criteria. Such a test was
inevitable unless all community practices were to be given legal effect. Thus,
the same question that arose for the positivist is seen inevitably to arise for the
natural law theorist; what are the features of certain patterns of social behavior
such that they may qualify as legally valid custom? Section II seeks to answer
this question.

                      II. Custom as Obligatory Practice
The role of custom in promoting social order precedes the emergence of the
common law. The rise of the English common law came about through the
gradual usurpation of the informal power exerted by informal social customs.20
Common law was the beginning of English law that was national in scope.21
Early customary law by contrast was local.22 Customary law grew up around
the practices of groups and so the scope of the law was dependent on the size
and geographical reach of the group. The medieval manorial system of land
use constituted the predominant form of social organization out of which these
early customs arose.23 Agrarian life was simple, and travel was difficult. Manors
were semiautonomous social worlds unto themselves, governed by sets of in-
formal customs. Sometimes these customs were written down in customals.24
As English judges began riding circuit in an attempt to create a law common to
this multitude of minijurisdictions, they at the same time went about the work
of supplanting the power of these jurisdictions. One of the means by which the
common law grew was by absorbing customary practices.
    As Part One of the book indicated, a norm is a social practice, and as Section
I claimed, a custom is, for present purposes, synonymous with a norm or, to be
more precise, a norm of not insignificant duration. A practice implies at least
four things, a group of people who practice, a segment of time over which they
practice, a place where they engage in the practice, and a subject matter – a
type of behavior – that constitutes the particular practice. Each of these ele-
ments of a practice has received discussion in the cases involving legal
    Consider first the group of people who have a practice. Courts historically
distinguished between general customs on the one hand, and local, particular
or special customs on the other hand.25 General customs were said to be those
that represented the practices of the people of England. These were practices
said to be common to all; thus, the general custom was the common law.26
By contrast, local customs were the practices of smaller groups, such as the
members of a parish, vill, manor, borough, or county, or those who belonged to
professional or commercial groups. Sometimes, local customs were restricted
                         The Traditional Rule of Custom                         153

in their application to members of these sublocal groups, and others would not
have similar rights extended.27 References were often made to “customs of the
countryside,”28 “customs of the realm,”29 or “popular custom.”30 In addition,
an important part of English custom were the so-called “customs of the court,”
which were customs developed among the judges regarding both procedural
and substantive matters.31
    There appears to be no group size too small to make up a group of conformers
to a custom, although the smaller the group the harder it sometimes was to have
the custom recognized as having legal force.32 Though commentators have not
explicitly noted the fact, the number of people who partake of a custom in
relation to the number of people in the community appears to have mattered as
well. Thus, it is not always the absolute number of people who are conformers
that is relevant, but the percentage of people in the community. This matters
with regard to the notice requirement for a legally valid custom. In other words,
customs must be public so that members of a community who may be obligated
to conform to them will have notice of their existence.33 General notice of a
custom’s existence will vary with the percentage of members of the community
that conform to the custom.
    The overall size of the group or community where a custom was practiced
also mattered. In general, it appears that the larger the town, the greater deference
it could expect toward its local customs.34 In many cases, this deference was
the result of royal charters secured by boroughs or towns, or charters granted by
local lords in imitation of the royal charters.35 The county of Kent for example
received a charter from the early Norman rulers allowing it relative autonomy.36
    It is natural to think that a custom is made up of all the acts of conformity
by those who share a practice of a particular sort. For example, those who
customarily walk along a beach would be thought to make up the group who
participate in the relevant custom as they share a distinctive sort of behavior,
namely, beach walking. But for legal purposes, the participants in a custom may
be a larger group. For example, with the custom of public use of a beach, the
owner of the property is legally a participant in the custom, as she may have
obligations toward those who customarily walk along the beach, although she
herself may not use the beach in the customary manner.37
    Next, consider the amount of time required for a practice to count as a legally
valid custom. The orthodox view is that the older the custom the better; that
is, the longer the custom has been in existence, the stronger the claim it has to
legal validity. This is captured in the venerable phrases that the custom must
have existed since “time out of mind,” or since “time immemorial,” or since the
“memory of man not runnith to the contrary.”38 The often-stated rule in the old
cases was that the custom must have existed uninterrupted since 1189.39 Not
surprisingly, this rule was not strictly followed.40
    In spite of the general tendency to prefer the old to the new, many old
customs were not given legal recognition, while many relatively new customs
154                           negligent norms

were recognized. In addition, the preference for antiquity mattered less, or not at
all, if the custom had a contractual or commercial underpinning.41 Immemorial
usage also was not required in towns.42 Boroughs could adopt new customs.43
    Third, the element of place also has mattered regarding the legal validity
of custom. It is sometimes said that local customs pertained to a particular
place and not particular people.44 Over time the particular set of persons who
conform to a specific custom will typically change; what remains the same
and makes for the same custom is that the same behavior takes place in the
same location.
    Commercial customs were an exception to the requirement that a custom
must be maintained by a group of people sharing a particular geographical
place. A group of merchants could share a custom despite the fact that they
did not share a geographical space.45 What appears to matter is that the group
share a community.46 Being in the same place is usually what allows a group
of people to share cultural understandings and practices and so constitute a
community, but commercial groups are an important exception. So perhaps are
the communities sprouting up on the Internet.
    Finally, regarding the subject matter of the practices that make up custom,
there does not seem to be a subject matter or type of social practice that was ex-
cluded from possible legal recognition. Different subject matters appear to have
received different treatment under the rule of custom, however. For example,
practices regarding property in land were particularly subject to the centraliz-
ing influence of the early common law courts, while practices related to the
family appear to have been given greater scope for more localized customary
law development.47 Customs of the commercial class were also given greater
deference from the centralizing influence of the common law.48
    Customs are practices of a particular sort, ones that are obligatory. Frederick
Pollock states that customs must be regarded by those concerned as binding,
not as a matter of individual choice.49 In the words of another commentator,
the thing done becomes the thing which must be done.50 This is sometimes
expressed in terms of the requirement of opinio necessitatis, or alternatively,
that customs are “prescriptive.”51 The requirement of the opinio necessitatis
has been defined as: “[T]he conviction on the part of those who use the custom
that it is obligatory, and not merely optional.”52 Some community practices are
obligatory, but others are not. Doctrinal accounts contend that only obligatory
customs may be subject to acquiring legal validity. When it is said that custom
is prescriptive, what is meant is that there exists an expectation of conformity
among members of the community and usually sanctions of one form or another
for nonconformity.
    Contrary to the explicit views of commentators, however, the conformity
need not be obligatory for all persons. In fact, at the extreme, it is only necessary
that one person be obligated by the custom. This is true of the customary right
to beach access, for example. The users are not obligated to use the beach so it
                        The Traditional Rule of Custom                        155

is not literally true that the thing done becomes the thing that must be done.53
The owner of the property, however, is obligated to permit access.
    The early doctrine was that customary law trumped common law when
there was a conflict.54 Over time, however, the common law got the upper
hand in this relationship. The common law usurped the primacy of custom by
impinging both means by which customs may serve as sources of law.55 First,
the autonomous legal power of small jurisdictions such as that of manors and
villages was curtailed and eventually choked off.56 Second, the test by which
customs could enter the common law was made more difficult.57 The best-
known test that a custom must pass in order to be a “source” of law was stated
by William Blackstone.58 According to Blackstone, a legally valid custom was
a usage that had been practiced in a community without interruption from time
immemorial. The Blackstonian test for custom was used by common law courts
to narrow the influence of local jurisdictions in favor of their own.59
    This section described the historical shift in the legal understanding of
custom. In the early period, customs were plausibly understood as law itself –
customary law. In modern law, however, customs are more appropriately un-
derstood as potential sources of law rather than as law itself. In the next and
last section, the role of custom as a source of property easement law will be
explored. Through the recognition by courts of customary uses of land, what
would otherwise be an instance of the intentional tort of trespass may instead
become a permanent easement in land.60

         III. Trespass Norms and Customary Easements in Land
Beach users sometimes seek easements over the dry sand portion of the beach,
which is part of the adjacent landowner’s property. The public has a right in
the wet sand in most jurisdictions as it is owned by the state. If people could
only use the wet sand, there would undoubtedly still be beach use. Given the
fact that the wet sand portion of the beach is accessible to the public, however,
there is much social benefit to be gained in addition if people are able to use the
adjacent dry sand. For example, small children can be more easily watched and
kept away from the water with the extra girth added by dry sand access. Not
only can the benefits of such use be great, but the countervailing damage may be
small, for beach sand is strikingly impermeable to damage over a broad range
of uses, and beach property is often purposefully left undeveloped. Likewise, in
cases involving customary pathways over private land, courts sometimes note
that it is possible for people to merely pass over the owner’s property, leaving
the land substantially as it was.61
   Courts have paid particular attention to easement situations involving the
so-called taking of profits. A profit is some physical part of the land such as
grass, soil, lumber, or firewood. For the most part, courts have frowned upon the
taking of profits.62 When courts have allowed taking of profits, they usually
156                           negligent norms

pointed to the minimal loss to the owner. In some cases, the main loss to the
owner was not what people took away or consumed but what they left behind,
trash. In some cases in which easements have been granted, courts have pointed
out that trash was picked up by the local municipality, apparently as evidence
of the workability of the easement.63
   If a permanent easement is granted, it can stop the owner from making
improvements on her land in the future, which may cause her great loss. Nev-
ertheless, courts sometimes cause owners to suffer such losses.64 Proponents
of the positive law and economic thesis can with some plausibility claim that
the court is reacting to the fact that great utility or welfare may be produced if
beaches remain free to the public, despite the substantial loss to the property
   In City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, the Florida Supreme Court waxed
poetic about the valuable uses to which the public had put the beaches over the
years: “There is probably no custom more universal, more natural or more an-
cient, on the sea-coasts, not only of the United States, but of the world, than that
of bathing in the salt waters of the ocean and the enjoyment of the wholesome
recreation incident thereto. The lure of the ocean is universal; to battle with its
refreshing breakers a delight.”65 The court recognized the customary use of the
adjacent land.
   The beach cases are a departure from earlier easement doctrine, which tended
to disrespect recreational pursuits as a valid category of land use to be accorded
privileged treatment. But in cases such as Gion, the courts explicitly recog-
nized recreation as a legitimate interest to promote.66 This orientation toward
a broad conception of the good comports well with utilitarianism, which does
not draw a principled distinction between recreation and other sorts of welfare-
enhancing activities. Likewise, the economic approach would not draw a dis-
tinction between different types of land usages, as long as they are of a sort that
people would in principle be willing to pay for.
   The economic account would apply the Coasian model to claims for custom-
ary easements.67 Users of a beach or path face a classic coordination problem in
getting together to represent their interests in a bargain with the owner to gain
usage of the land. The law, then, should do its best to provide a rule that cre-
ates an outcome closest to that which would have resulted if such a bargaining
process had been feasible. In other words, in cases in which judges think the
conformers have the requisite interests, such that if capable of expression in a
bargaining process with the owner, these interests would have been sufficiently
strong so as to garner an easement by contract, then the law should validate the
practice by creating the easement. By such a process, the law is able to simulate
the results of an ideal bargaining process.68
   In their discussions, courts often focus on the benefits to the public of partic-
ular customary practices when finding a custom, and focus on the loss suffered
by the owner when rejecting a custom.69 The more benefit to the public the
                         The Traditional Rule of Custom                          157

better, and the less loss to the owner the better. Courts pay particular attention
when a whole community can be said to benefit. The beach access cases have
long been replete with mentions of the great value to the public of expanded
beach use.70
   While courts appear to have paid a good deal of attention to the efficient pro-
motion of interests of the affected parties in their decisions involving customs,
it would be rash to conclude that considerations of interests alone were the
sole or predominant normative impulse motivating courts in customary ease-
ment cases. What has been seen so far is that consequentialist or interest-based
considerations have been important in easement cases. No grounds have been
established for thinking that such concerns play any greater role than this, how-
ever. To show that the positive efficiency thesis is not the whole story, one must
demonstrate the significant role of other normative impulses besides the desire
to promote efficiency. If other normative impulses play a significant role, their
tracks should be discernible. And, indeed they are; the most important one is
discussed next.
   The most significant reason why an efficiency interpretation of easement
doctrine looks attractive is that courts in easement cases have paid a good deal
of attention to the interests of the involved parties. Precisely because courts
have been relatively open in their discussions of the role of interests, it is all the
more apparent that even though considerations of interests have been important,
their role is not best interpreted in a straightforwardly efficiency-maximizing
   Courts look to more than interests, and when they do look at interests, they
do not treat the interests of all participants equally. This latter notion bears
elaboration. Taking account of consequences, but weighing them differently
depending on whose they are and other features of the situation, may seem
foreign to normative analysis. But that is because doing so may not correspond
precisely with any of the leading critical normative theories. The goal here,
however, is to understand what has gone on descriptively or positively, not
whether what has gone on is justifiable or reconcilable with any of the better
known moral theories.72 Consider the following example.
   Courts have shown a sensitivity to a special normative relationship that may
arise between the conformers to a practice and the owner on whose property the
practice takes place. The relationship arises when property owners acquiesce in
the usage over a period of time, allowing the group to develop a pattern of behav-
ior and form expectations around it. The longer the practice is allowed to go on
and the more the expectations and habits of the community form around it, the
more inclined the courts are to validate the practice as a permanent easement.73
Over time the relative weighing, normatively speaking, of the owner’s interests
shifts vis-` -vis those of the conformers. The more longstanding the practice,
the more weight the conformers’ interests are accorded relative to those of the
owner. On the face of things, an efficiency account cannot make sense of this
158                             negligent norms

for it is forward-looking, and this normative impulse looks to the particular his-
tory between the parties and attaches moral significance to it. No doubt, there
might be good interest-based reasons for judicial recognition of such ensconced
practices as well, but the normative impulse that appears to motivate courts is
distinct from this.
   In a well-known passage, Lon Fuller has enunciated a basic moral intuition
that appears strongly similar to the one lying behind situations of this sort,
although Fuller was not discussing easements. Fuller writes:

Where by his actions toward B, A has (whatever his actual intentions may have been)
given B reasonably to understand that he (A) will in the future in similar circumstances
act in a similar manner, and B has, in some substantial way, prudently adjusted his affairs
to the expectation that A will in the future act in accordance with this expectation, then
A is bound to follow the pattern set by his past pattern of actions toward B. This creates
an obligation by A to B.74

Fuller’s position can be summarized by saying that a moral obligation is created
in A toward B based on detrimental reliance by B on A. Though Fuller brings
up moral intuition in the context of contract law,75 a moral intuition of this sort
appears to be the key to understanding the normative subtleties of what courts
have been doing in easement law when they have given increased weight to the
practices of groups as a function of the longevity of these practices.
    It is ambiguous whether Fuller means to say that a genuine moral obligation is
created by such detrimental reliance or rather that, as a matter of description, our
culture and our legal system happen to be cognitively constituted such that they
take events like these to create an obligation. It is perhaps the best interpretation
of the text to say that Fuller does not have this distinction clearly in view, so
his remarks are best not taken as evidence of a claim one way or the other.
The present discussion, however, will avoid the question whether detrimental
reliance creates a moral obligation, in the moral realist or Platonic sense of this
term. Rather, the concern is over the best positive account of the practices. For
this, Fuller’s insight, understood as a moral-sociological characterization, is of
great interest.76
    Consider some of the main features of the moral impulse. Courts pay partic-
ular attention to whether owners could have done something to stop the practice
and whether the users relied on the continuation of the practice. In Gion, for
example, the court was quite explicit in its use of language connoting reliance:
“If the open and known acts are of such a nature as to induce the belief that the
owner intended to dedicate the way to the public and individuals act on such
conduct, proceed as if there had been in fact a dedication and acquire rights that
would be lost if the owner were allowed to reclaim the land, then the law will
not permit him to assert that there was no intent to dedicate, no matter what may
have been his secret intent.”77 Having allowed the use of their land over a long
period such that people have formed their expectations accordingly and would
                           The Traditional Rule of Custom                              159

suffer from a disruption of the status quo, it would be unfair, courts appear to
think, for owners to unilaterally snatch away the physical underpinnings of the
practice.78 Thus, a legal obligation to continue to allow the usage is created and
   In easement cases, courts have typically employed a stricter test than that
enunciated by Fuller. The test is usually stated so as to require conformity to
the practice performed under a claim of right. Courts often do not say precisely
what they mean by this requirement. Roughly, the idea is that courts find it
significant that conformers thought they had a right or entitlement to use the land
in question and accordingly did not seek permission.80 In Gion, for example,
the court wrote:

What must be shown is that persons used the property believing the public had a right to
such use. This public use may not be “adverse” to the interests of the owner in the sense
that the word is used in adverse possession cases. If a trial court finds that the public has
used land without objection or interference for more than five years, it need not make a
separate finding of “adversity” to support a decision of implied dedication.81

The test, then, is that the general public must be acting, if only implicitly, under
the assumption that the usage was open to the public. In other words, people
must act under the assumption that the public was entitled to use the land in
question.82 In the beach cases, it was natural for people to assume that they had
a right of access to the beaches. After all, one typically comes and goes to the
beach as one likes. No one takes a ticket, puts up a fence, or stops one from
laying one’s blanket on the dry sand portion of the beach. Because members
of the general public think they have a right to such usages, they will more
naturally tend to come to rely on them, as it would not occur to them that the
usages could be curtailed by the unilateral acts of one private party.
    The contracts literature on detrimental reliance forms the background to
Fuller’s discussion.83 Part of the test for one’s being responsible for another
party’s detrimental reliance is that one induced it. Inducement is a causal notion.
The same condition appears to apply in easement law. Owners must be in some
sense causally connected to the detrimental reliance of the customary users.
Reliance gone bad cannot be laid morally on the shoulders of any random
person who happens to be nearby when the detrimental reliance occurs. He or
she must have played some special role in bringing the reliance about.
    Though one must be causally connected to the detrimental reliance, courts
have a number of options in terms of choice of rules for determining what
connections between the owner’s actions and the detrimental reliance of the
conformers will have adverse legal consequences for the owner. The courts
might have created a very difficult test to pass whereby owners had to inten-
tionally attempt to create detrimental reliance. Or courts might have required
that owners have acted negligently in creating the reliance. The rule courts
in fact adopted can be seen as approaching a sort of strict liability standard.
160                           negligent norms

Owners are seen as causally connected to the reliance by virtue of their ability
to stop the reliance from naturally occurring. This is true even though stopping
the reliance from occurring may require positive acts on the owner’s part such
as putting up a fence or posting signs. If owners fail to take these steps and
people use the land for easements for long periods such that they come to rely
on the usages, owners will be held liable for the reliance of the group, in the
sense that the practices will be given the status of permanent easements.
    In Gion, one of the owners had posted signs and had even put a log across
the access road to the beach that ran across his land.84 The court held that this
was not enough.85 So owners need not cause the reliance except in the very
weak sense that they fail to take positive steps to stop detrimental reliance from
naturally occurring. Thus, in effect, courts have placed a positive duty on the
owner to either take serious steps to stop the usage, or sit back and watch a few
sticks fall out from her bundle of property rights onto the common.
    Summing up the discussion to this point, an examination of case law on
property easements has explicated an interesting moral relationship that may
develop between conformers to a practice and the owner on whose land the
practice takes place. A moral relationship may develop that displays features
making it strongly akin to the sort of obligation that arises (descriptively speak-
ing) in situations of induced detrimental reliance in contract law. Overall, what
was seen was that the best interpretation of the common law of easements sees
judges as rewarding practices of groups with legal recognition when the practice
took place under a claim of right and with the owner’s acquiescence. It is in
such circumstances that reliance of a detrimental sort may easily be induced.
This relationship affects the extent to which the interests of the various parties
are counted by courts.
    The question remains as to the relationship between this moral impulse
and the economic interpretation of easement doctrine, which was looked at
earlier. The important role played by induced detrimental reliance is plausibly
seen as showing that the positive efficiency thesis does not hold true for this
particular corner of the common law. This finding would only be fatal to the
strong claim that the common law always and only promoted efficiency.86 Few
theorists appear to defend this strong position however. Judge Posner, the scholar
most associated with the positive thesis, in fact makes room for exceptions.
Indeed, he provides a list, albeit a short one, of some legal doctrines that are
best understood as not promoting efficiency.87 An implication of the foregoing
normative interpretation is that the role of custom in property easement law
should be added to the list.
    The preceding normative interpretation of easements is best understood as
posing a more fundamental threat to the positive efficiency thesis than simply
adding another entry to the list of its exceptions. In the process of performing the
interpretation, we uncovered a type of normative feature that Judge Posner’s
remarks on the topic are inadequate to deal with. Posner puts all normative
                        The Traditional Rule of Custom                         161

concerns into two categories: wealth-maximization and redistribution.88 Posner
then attacks the feasibility of redistribution. Posner says that judges are not
well equipped to redistribute but offers little discussion as to why this is so.
A number of scholars have questioned this claim.89 The worry here is of a
different sort. Judicial recognition of a moral impulse flowing out of situations
of induced detrimental reliance demonstrates that it is not illuminating to label
all normative impulses that are other than efficiency promoting as falling under
the heading of redistribution.
    For example, consider some of the thick moral features one sees in the
everyday world, such as the special duty that arises when one makes a promise,
or the special duty one may have toward those who have helped one in the past.
It is a core tenet of modern moral theory that such impulses cannot be reduced
to instrumentalist concerns, for it can always be the case in a particular situation
that one may have to choose between maximizing welfare or efficiency, on the
one hand, and showing fidelity to the demands of one of these duties, on the
other hand, that is, between doing what is good and doing what is right. These
duties are not helpfully seen as redistributive. It is apparent then that neither
these moral principles nor the moral impulse that arises in situations of induced
detrimental reliance fit well into Posner’s categories. Once one actually looks
into the complexity and the moral nuances of this relationship, it is simply not
descriptively accurate to label it as redistributive. Even if one accepted Posner’s
assertion that judges are largely incapable of affecting distribution, it would not
necessarily matter for normative impulses such as these, for as we have seen,
judges are indeed capable of affecting the law so as to promote the impulse
whereby obligations are created through induced detrimental reliance under a
claim of right.
    In addition, Posner argues that other normative impulses lack the social
consensus that efficiency or wealth maximization have.90 This may or may not
be true for the generic impulse toward income redistribution, but it certainly is
not true for customs, which by definition have some degree of social consensus.
There is no reason to suppose that a moral impulse such as the one created in
situations of induced detrimental reliance is any less a feature of our shared
moral outlook than is a concern for social efficiency. The opposite seems more
likely to be the case.
    In passing, Posner suggests that, for practical purposes, the issue is not of
great concern because other normative impulses are more of less consistent with
the dictates of efficiency.91 Consistency does not mean, however, that sui generis
moral impulses can be reduced to efficiency. Consistency here just amounts to
the fact that the thick moral features also happen to be welfare-enhancing for
some noticeable portion of all possible situations of the relevant sort. The crucial
situations are where the principles are inconsistent or clashing, not where they
are consistent.92 In particular situations, a judge may be in a position in which
efficiency points in one direction and thick normative features of the situation
162                          negligent norms

in another. And even when they are consistent, other normative impulses ought
not automatically be characterized as reducible to efficiency. Any reduction to
efficiency concerns will fail to appreciate the intentional content or internal
moral logic of such principles, and plausibly, this is what judges and juries are
motivated by, either because they personally hold to such principles or, as may
be the case for some judges, desire to accommodate public sentiment for some
instrumental reason, such as the prospect of reelection.
   The preceding discussion sheds light on the processes whereby informal
moral or normative impulses enter into the law. What appears to happen with
customary practices that involve detrimental reliance is that over time the group
develops a sense of entitlement to a continued usage of the land. Courts appear
to share the moral outlook, or at any rate they choose to pay respect to it. If
this is so, and if the community is normatively heterogeneous, then one would
expect the same heterogeneity to be found in the best interpretation of what
judges have been doing. In such a manner, normatively heterogeneous informal
customs come to have legal backing.

This chapter focused on the historical development of the concept of legally
valid custom. The first section explored the changing jurisprudential status of
custom. Early on, certain customs attained the status of customary law. In more
recent times, customs may serve as sources of law but are not law itself. In
the second section, the more modern conception of custom was examined in
greater detail. On this conception, customs are best understood as obligatory
social practices. Finally, the third section performed a normative interpretation
of the role of custom in property easement law. It was seen that the emergence
of easements is best explained as due in important part to a normative impulse
akin to induced detrimental reliance, rather than simply to an impulse toward
welfare maximization.
          The Evidentiary Rule of Custom

   If the defendants had proved that in every mining establishment that has existed
   since the days of Tubal-Cain, it has been the practice to cut ladder-holes in their
   platforms, situated as this was while in daily use for mining operations, without
   guarding or lighting them, and without notice to contractors or workmen, it would
   have no tendency to show that the act was consistent with ordinary prudence, or a
   due regard for the safety of those who were using their premises by their invitation.
   The gross carelessness of the act appears conclusively upon its recital.1
                                                     Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining Co.

This chapter continues the examination of the role that social norms and cus-
toms play in tort law. The last chapter concluded with an examination of how
customary easements have arisen in situations that might otherwise constitute a
trespass, owing to the recognition of community norms of land use. The present
chapter extends the analysis beyond the specific context of trespass to tort law
generally. Custom’s role in tort is pervasive.2 When people injure one another
while conforming to social norms and customs, it is the duty of tort law to
determine which of these injuries may merit legal redress.
   Modern tort law mainly follows the negligence standard according to which
one will be found liable for an injury only if one acted negligently in caus-
ing it. Leading early cases established the connection between negligence and
“ordinary care”3 While ordinary care and due care are often used as synony-
mous terms in tort law, note the linguistic peculiarity of referring to ordinary care
in a circumstance in which there is a lack of relevant customary activity. Ordi-
nary behavior is customary behavior. Courts look to whether an injurious action
conformed to an accepted custom or social norm in determining whether the
action was either negligent or an expression of due care.4 In other words, com-
mon law doctrine recognizes that conformity to custom may have evidentiary
or epistemic value with regard to the issue of negligence.
164                          negligent norms

    In negligence litigation, injurers attempt to establish their conformity to
custom as evidence of due care, while victims attempt to establish the injurer’s
failure to conform as evidence of negligence. When conformity is used de-
fensively, the injurer in effect asks: “How could I have done wrong, as I was
simply doing what others do in similar situations? How could all the conform-
ers to this widespread social custom be negligent?” This was the sort of defense
offered by the defendant railroad in Texas & Pacific Railway v. Behymer, one of
two leading cases establishing the modern rule of custom in tort.5 When the
rule of custom is used offensively, the victim in effect complains: “Surely the
injurer was negligent as she failed to exhibit the degree of caution that is so
obviously required that it has become customary.” The rule of custom was used
offensively in The T. J. Hooper, the other leading case establishing the modern
    Modern tort law has alternatively endorsed two main rules of custom,
which I label the per se and the evidentiary rules.7 The introductory doctri-
nal discussion in Section I focuses on the manner in which the older per se
rule, whereby conformity to custom established the fact of due care, was re-
placed by an evidentiary rule, which holds that conformity may be evidence
of, but is not dispositive of, due care. Understanding these rules in greater
detail, and particularly why the evidentiary rule won out, will be essential
to gaining a larger perspective on the relationship between customs and
tort law.
    An adequate account of why courts have gravitated toward the evidentiary
rule has remained elusive.8 Section II initially considers the two most plausi-
ble candidates for such an account. The first, developed in the classic article,
Custom and Negligence, by Clarence Morris, argues that juries will be less
biased against defendants in their deliberations when they are made to appre-
ciate that the defendant’s injurious behavior conforms to widespread industry
practices.9 The second account is the traditional, positive economic account of
Landes and Posner, which predicts that the per se rule will be found in situa-
tions in which there is actual or potential bargaining between the parties, but
not otherwise.10 When parties are able to bargain, they will be able to reach
welfare-maximizing agreements on their own, and these agreements will be
represented in customary practices. Accordingly, courts should insulate the
practices by means of the per se rule.
    Each of these accounts must be rejected, however, for failing to explain
the emergence of the evidentiary rule as the dominant modern rule. Morris’s
account, while a fine early legal realist attempt to explore the sometimes jar-
ring realities of jury psychology, nevertheless fails to explain why there may
be genuine reasons that conformity to custom has epistemic value with regard
to the issue of negligence, once concerns regarding jury bias have been taken
into account. Landes and Posner’s account fails because it wrongly predicts
that the per se rule will prevail in bargaining contexts. In fact, the evidentiary
                         The Evidentiary Rule of Custom                         165

rule is the dominant modern rule in both bargaining and nonbargaining
    In the process of evaluating Landes and Posner’s account, it will become
apparent that informal game theory promises a better explanation of negligence
law’s use of social custom. Chapter Eight argues that a game-theoretic account
that is adequate for the purposes of tort law necessarily encompasses the tripar-
tite typology of norms and customs that was discussed in Part One: sanction-
driven customs, coordination customs, and epistemic customs. Sanction-driven
customs are closely related to the collective action problem or Prisoner’s
Dilemma, which has received a good deal of attention in recent law and norms
literature.11 Scant attention has been paid, however, to customs with the struc-
tures of coordination customs or epistemic customs. These latter two types of
customs, while potentially beneficial to their participants and to society in gen-
eral, often involve activities that create serious injuries. Accordingly, they are of
great interest to tort law. We will see that understanding the tripartite typology
is essential to fully appreciating the subtleties of a number of important cases,
leading to the conclusion that courts, if they are to do their job, must better un-
derstand the varieties of rational structure that undergird legally relevant social
norms and customs.
    Chapter Nine will then begin by offering a chart that systematically presents
the most important factors that welfare-maximizing courts must consider when
dealing with norms and customs. The chapter will next provide an explana-
tion of how courts can use the chart: They can first determine which type of
rational norm is at issue in a particular case and then consider each of the mark-
ers of welfare-maximization – such as whether the underlying community is
close-knit or whether the conformers to the custom have superior epistemic
warrant – in order to arrive at the appropriate rule of custom. The remainder of
Chapter Nine will then demonstrate the value of the enhanced structural account
by utilizing it to reinterpret The T. J. Hooper and Behymer. Among other things
this analysis will show that while Hooper is conventionally considered to be the
leading case of custom in tort, this description better befits Behymer. Finally,
Chapters Ten and Eleven move outside of a wealth-maximization framework.
I will argue that the reasonable person standard, as it presently exists, and as
it has previously existed in the law, is not best understood in terms either of
wealth or welfare maximization.
    From the perspective of welfare maximization, there is both an upside and a
downside to the more complex account of custom developed in this and the next
four chapters.12 The upside is that the other two types of customs do not face
the same constraints on efficiency that are faced by sanction-driven customs.
The efficiency of an SD custom will depend on whether the participants are
able to use the threat of sanctions to incentivize one another into cooperative
behavior.13 For example, with regard to the Prisoner’s Dilemma, Ellickson
argues persuasively that participants may be able to solve this problem when the
166                          negligent norms

underlying community is “close-knit.”14 The potentially disastrous implication
of Ellickson’s hypothesis, however, is that all norms not arising in close-knit
communities will fail to be efficient.
    Fortunately, the same dire implication may not pertain to coordination cus-
toms and epistemic customs that are maintained by communities that are not
close-knit. In contrast to sanction-driven customs, there is no natural incentive
to free ride on coordination customs or epistemic customs. Participants conform
to these customs because it is in their direct interest to do so. With coordina-
tion customs, people conform to achieve a coordination benefit. Accordingly,
efficient coordination customs may be maintained in communities that are not
close-knit. Consequently, courts will not be able to look to close-knitedness as
the sole, sufficient indicator of efficiency when it comes to coordination cus-
toms. The same will hold for epistemic customs. Participants freely conform
to these customs to economize on the cost of information, not to avoid the
sanctioning forces of others. Accordingly, such customs may be maintained by
groups that are not close-knit.
    The downside to the more complex account of custom is that each of the
three types of custom faces its own characteristic inefficiencies. In other words,
simply because epistemic customs and coordination customs may be efficient
in groups that are not close-knit does not mean that they are always efficient.
Coordination customs may be inefficient because the participants get locked
into a practice in which individual conformity continues to be rational, even
though the overall practice could itself be replaced by a better practice. With
epistemic customs, inefficient practices may be maintained simply as a result of
the fact that all the conformers to the practice think that conformity is welfare
maximizing based on their mistaken expected-utility calculation.15
    The complexity of custom’s role in tort law is best understood by beginning
with an examination of the leading doctrinal accounts of this relationship.

  I. Holmes and Hand: Creators of the Modern Rule of Custom in Tort
There have been two main rules of custom in modern negligence law, which I
have labeled the per se and the evidentiary rules. In addition, courts sometimes
give no legal weight whatsoever to the fact of conformity to custom, which
could be characterized as yet a third rule, the no-priority rule.16 The per se
rule holds that conformity to custom is a complete defense to negligence.17
The evidentiary rule holds that conformity to custom may serve as evidence
of nonnegligence, but it does not conclusively establish the fact of due care.
Rather, it will be for a jury to decide whether a customary act exhibited an
appropriate degree of caution.
   The leading case promoting the per se rule was Titus v. Bradford, which, in an
often-cited phrase, referred to this rule as the “unbending test of negligence.”18
The court stated: “[T]he unbending test of negligence in methods, machinery
                         The Evidentiary Rule of Custom                         167

and appliances is the ordinary usage of business. No man is held by law to a
higher degree of skill than the fair average of his profession or trade, and the
standard due is the conduct of the average prudent man.”19
    This passage indicates that, according to the per se rule, “ordinary usage”
amounts to a basically statistical notion, the “average.” Average people are by
definition doing what most others are doing, that is, conforming to widespread
customs. When one conforms to custom, one provides ordinary or due care by
definition, for as the preceding passage states, the “standard due” is the conduct
of the “average” prudent man who will not be held to a higher standard than
that prevailing in his profession.
    In Webber v. Bank of Tracy, the court bluntly stated that juries should not be
in a position to have such a dramatic impact on an industry as might result from
a decision adverse to the industry, involving a prominent industry custom.20 The
court stated: “Juries must necessarily determine the responsibility of individual
conduct, but they cannot be allowed to set a standard which shall, in effect,
dictate the customs or control the business of the community.” Here, the court
used the per se rule to protect industry against the possibility of liability for
standard practices. With the coming of the Industrial Age, the per se rule pro-
vided powerful protection to a variety of industrial entities engaged in activities
that produced serious injuries to employees and third parties.
    The practical effect of the per se rule in the courtroom is substantial; a judge
will direct a verdict in favor of the injurer charged with negligence upon a
finding of conformity to custom. The jury will not be given the opportunity
to find the injurer negligent.21 By contrast, the procedure of the evidentiary
rule is such that judges will allow facts regarding conformity to custom to be
introduced as evidence going to the issue of due care. Under this latter approach,
the important task is to determine the criteria for deciding when conformity is
probative of due care. As we will see, neither courts nor commentators have
displayed a good grasp of these criteria, characteristically saying very little
of substance as to why a particular custom should or should not be accorded
evidentiary weight, or what the relevant custom is.
    Despite cases such as Webber, the evidentiary rule has in large part won out
over the per se rule. Two important decisions by two of the century’s leading
jurists – Oliver Wendell Holmes and Learned Hand – were influential in bringing
about the rejection of the per se rule in favor of the evidentiary rule. Both
decisions essentially turn on the same key point: The standard of reasonableness
is analytically distinct from the test of conformity to custom, such that there is no
rational ground on which one should expect all conforming acts to be reasonable
acts. Whether conformity is reasonable depends on whether the practice itself is
reasonable. There is nothing about the existence of a customary practice, per se,
that makes it reasonable. Each practice must be judged on its own merits.
    In Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Behymer, Justice Holmes stated: “What
usually is done may be evidence of what ought to be done, but what ought
168                             negligent norms

to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usually
is complied with or not.”22 The case involved a railroad employee who was
seriously injured when he slipped from the top of an ice-covered railroad car
that was moving about in a train yard. The train hit a bump and the worker slid
and caught his trouser leg on a protruding nail, causing him to fall. The railroad
sought to use conformity to industry custom as a per se defense so that the
question of negligence would not go to the jury. The railroad claimed that it was
operating in its “usual and ordinary way,” and so by application of the rule of
custom, it had a proper defense to the charge of negligence.
    Holmes rejected this argument, holding that if the underlying social practice
was unsafe, there should be a determination of negligence in tort. In other words,
mere conformity to a custom cannot be a per se defense to negligence when
the underlying practice is itself negligent. Holmes ruled that the lower court
had not been in error in rejecting the per se defense and allowing the issue of
negligence to go to the jury, as the railroad’s practice was, according to Holmes,
“obviously dangerous.”23 In this decision, Justice Holmes rejected the per se
version of the rule of custom in favor of the evidentiary version.
    From an historical perspective, we can view Holmes’s decision in Behymer
as an attempt to respond to a dramatic increase in the number of grave accidents
that had been wrought by the instrumentalities of the Industrial Age. In Holmes’s
day, the case law contained numerous instances in which defendants attempted
to escape liability for injuries resulting from patently dangerous practices by
appeal to the defense of conformity to custom. In Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining,
for example, the injurer was a mining company that had failed to place a guard
rail around a hole in an underground mining platform that was unlighted.24 The
mining company in addition had also neglected to warn plaintiff of the hole’s
existence. The plaintiff did not see the hole in the unlighted platform and fell
approximately thirty-five feet through the dark shaft before crashing down onto
another platform. The worker was seriously injured and sued to recover for
    In seeking to introduce evidence of industry practice, the defendant pleaded:
“This mining company was bound to keep up to the average. The plaintiff was
entitled to ordinary care on its part. How can the jury tell whether the lack of
a railing was a lack of ordinary care unless they are told how it is ordinarily in
other mines?” Outraged, the court rejected in no uncertain terms the defendant’s
attempt to use custom as a cover:
If the defendants had proved that in every mining establishment that has existed since
the days of Tubal-Cain, it has been the practice to cut ladder-holes in their platforms,
situated as this was while in daily use for mining operations, without guarding or lighting
them, and without notice to contractors or workmen, it would have no tendency to show
that the act was consistent with ordinary prudence, or a due regard for the safety of
those who were using their premises by their invitation. The gross carelessness of the
act appears conclusively upon its recital.25
                         The Evidentiary Rule of Custom                            169

   Patently dangerous situations such as the one that outraged the Sullivan
Mining court in this passage probably were on Holmes’s mind when he decided
   Along with Behymer, the second modern case that did the most to undermine
the per se rule was The T. J. Hooper, decided by the Second Circuit in 1932.26
Writing for a three-judge panel, Learned Hand famously remarked:

Indeed in most cases reasonable prudence is in fact common prudence; but strictly it
is never its measure; a whole calling may have unduly lagged in the adoption of new
and available devices. It never may set its own tests, however persuasive be its usages.
Courts must in the end say what is required; there are precautions so imperative that
even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission.27

   As is well known, the case involved the issue of whether it was negligent for
a tugboat, The T. J. Hooper, not to have been equipped with radio equipment
that might have allowed it to receive notice of an impending storm. Judge Hand
found there to be no custom either way with respect to radio use. According to
Hand, the special master could conclude that the absence of a working radio on
The T. J. Hooper rendered it not seaworthy and that this defect was a proximate
cause of the loss of the loaded barge it was towing. It did not matter that other
tugs were also generally not equipped with radios (if in fact they were not so
equipped). They too were courting disaster.
   Hand concluded that because not all conforming acts are reasonable
acts, there cannot be a per se defense to negligence based on a showing of a
conforming act. Courts, he said, must instead engage in an inquiry as to whether
the particular act at issue was one that conformed to a custom, but also as to
whether that custom lagged behind what was reasonably required. In Hand’s
view, radios were so inexpensive and their potential benefits so great that the
owners of The T. J. Hooper were likely negligent for not having this equipment
in place, regardless of the fact that such devices were a recent invention that had
yet to dominate the tugboat industry. Thus, like Justice Holmes, Judge Hand
rejected the notion that conduct was immune from negligence liability merely
because it accorded with what others in the occupation or practice did in similar
   Holmes and Hand would be the first to acknowledge the fact that, across
a wide range of human activity, what is ordinarily done is evidently prudent
behavior as little injury results.29 Ordinarily, people display a good deal of
prudence. But this is not always the case; there is nothing magical about
ordinary behavior that makes it prudent by definition. As Clarence Morris
states: “Since customs may be venal, conformity to them may constitute outra-
geous misconduct.”30 Conversely, if individual acts may be imprudent, a set of
individual acts of a similar sort constituting a custom may also all be imprudent.
In fact, the instantiation of the per se rule in a particular jurisdiction may serve
as a perverse incentive for negligent behavior by providing it a safe harbor.31 In
170                             negligent norms

this vein, an early commentator noted:

The harmful results that would in all probability follow the adoption of the common
usage, and the safe results that would be assured by the substitution of a different method
might, in a particular case, be so apparent that a prudent man would reject the former,
and adopt the latter course. But in doing this he would depart from the rule laid down
by the “unbending test” and of his own accord adopt the wiser and safer rule. Yet the
rule of the “unbending test” constrains him to adopt the unsafe method in order to bring
himself within the rule and escape the charge of negligence.32

    Miller’s point in this passage is that the per se rule will have the perverse
effect of causing people to stay in the safe harbor created by the rule when
they otherwise might have acted on their belief that the customary practice was
faulty, and instead have performed the nonconforming action that appeared
to be safer. Perhaps in part due to an implicit appreciation of this sort of
argument, along with that of Holmes and Hand, the per se rule lost a good
deal of prominence. Nevertheless, it survived. In apparently all jurisdictions,
the two rules lived side by side, though sometimes uncomfortably.33 Because
jurisdictions had decisions going in either direction, a court could choose to
employ either rule in any given case.
    The durability of the per se rule against the critiques of Holmes and Hand may
have owed in part to the fact that courts saw it as providing a salutary “policy”
check on potentially vast liability. Thus, in the period between the 1930s and
the 1960s, one tends to find the rule invoked in cases where courts seem anxious
to provide protection for certain industries.34 Nevertheless, by the 1970s, the
majority of courts and commentators had opted for the evidentiary rule and,
accordingly, it has become the dominant rule of custom in modern tort law.35
    The practices of medical doctors (and other professionals) are, however,
subject to an exception to the modern evidentiary rule. Conformity to customary
medical practices by a physician is generally a complete defense to negli-
gence.36 In the past, it was enough that a physician conformed to a local
customary practice. Many modern jurisdictions require, however, that the
custom be regional or national.
    It is striking, however, that while the evidentiary rule has won out over its
rival, courts and scholars have been content to rely on the negative arguments
of Holmes and Hand and have not offered a positive justification as to why the
mere evidence of a practice made up of the actions of nonparties to a lawsuit
has anything whatsoever to do with whether a particular defendant’s actions in
some particular circumstances constitute negligence. If a whole industry can
lag behind, then in order to know whether or not the particular industry at issue
is lagging, a judge seemingly must make an independent evaluation of the
particular act of conformity involved in the situation. But if the act is evaluated
independently, then the practice is analytically posterior and apparently
irrelevant to the evaluation of the particular act.37 In other words, why should
                         The Evidentiary Rule of Custom                         171

compliance with custom have any role to play in the negligence determination?
The silence of Holmes and Hand may not be surprising, as courts are not
required to give a rationale for the rules they apply if they apply them more or
less correctly. This, however, leaves scholars with the task of articulating the
evidentiary connection between conformity to custom and nonnegligence.

      II. Two Faulty Rationales for the Evidentiary Rule of Custom
In Section I, we saw that while the evidentiary rule has largely supplanted the
per se rule, making it the dominant modern rule of custom in tort, courts have
not adequately articulated the rationale behind this rule. Previously, the most
sustained academic remarks on the subject were to be found in Custom and
Negligence, by Clarence Morris.38 Following on the heels of Behymer, decided
in 1903, and The T. J. Hooper, decided in 1931, this article, published in 1941,
is fairly seen from an historical perspective as the leading scholarly exploration
of the twin attack on the per se rule of custom by two of the leading common
law judges from that era.
    While Morris’s account proves ultimately to be unsatisfying, it is neverthe-
less the best place to initiate a deeper understanding of the competing virtues
of the two rules. The next place to turn is the law and economic account, which
naturally suggests itself, as Holmes and Hand are claimed to be two of the law
and economics movement’s early progenitors. Landes and Posner’s account of
efficient custom will be examined. After rejecting it as failing in predictive
power, we will then see in Chapter Eight whether an informal game-theoretic
account may provide better predictions.

                      A. Morris’s Jury Bias Interpretation
Morris argued that evidence of conformity to custom is relevant and should go
to the jury because it tends to reduce natural jury prejudice against businesses
that injure individuals.39 He contended, however, that there should be no per se
rule protecting all injurers simply because they were conforming to an existent
practice.40 Morris gave two main reasons in support of his view that evidence
of conformity should go to the jury, beginning with the following: “Evidence
of conformity induces objective thought; it counteracts sympathy for an injured
plaintiff; it highlights the need for care in weighing the defendant’s conduct;
and inhibits the tendency to hold the defendant on the suspicion that he is able
to absorb the loss better than the plaintiff.”41
    Note that the thrust of Morris’s point in this passage is not about the probative
or epistemic value of custom but rather about its value with regard to reducing
jury bias. Starting from the plausible assumption that jurors will naturally be
sympathetic with regard to the personal injuries of individual plaintiffs, Morris
claims that evidence of conformity will serve to counteract the biased outcomes
172                              negligent norms

that are likely to result from such sympathies.42 Jurors, he supposes, will be
more sympathetic toward a particular company if they are brought to realize
that it must compete with other companies, and that doing so requires making
expenditures on safety commensurate to that of other companies. In addition,
jurors may be less prone to slight the interests of whole industries if they are
reminded of the potentially dramatic impact on an industry if it is forced to
change its manner of doing business due to a finding of liability in a particular
case. While only the particular defendant at trial is in jeopardy of suffering
damages directly as a result of the lawsuit, the stakes are nevertheless higher
in cases involving industry custom than in a case that does not involve custom
because the entire industry may be forced to adopt a different practice in order to
avoid future liability. Morris thinks juries will be less blinded by their sympathy
for plaintiffs if they have in the back of their minds these high stakes, both for
a whole industry and for the particular company that is a party to the lawsuit.
   These points have the ring of truth so far as they go, but their plausibility
depends on the assumption that the defendant was following a reasonable or
nearly reasonable custom. If the custom was flagrantly unreasonable, juries
would be unlikely to worry that their verdict will make the defendant less
competitive. It is more plausible to suppose that a jury would instead think that,
as all industry participants in the practice were acting wrongfully, each should
make changes in its behavior (and pay for failing to do so). In other words, the
fact that the whole industry engages in an odious practice might well make a
jury more sympathetic toward the victim of such a practice. It is clear then that
Morris’s first point about the relevance of conformity to custom on the part of
the injurer does not contribute toward establishing the general value of evidence
of conformity but at most explains why evidence of conformity with reasonable
customs will counter jury bias against business defendants.
   Morris’s second point with respect to the evidentiary rule of custom also
concerns the connection between custom and jury prejudice rather than its con-
nection to due care. Morris states this justification for preferring the evidentiary
rule as follows:

Evidence of conformity sharpens attention on the practicality of caution greater than the
defendant used. It puts teeth in the requirement that the plaintiff establish negligence.
Judges and jurymen seldom know much about the defendant’s business. When the
defendant’s craft is palpably esoteric, the courts require the plaintiff to prove by experts
that a feasible way of avoiding the plaintiff’s injury was open to the defendant. But
unfortunately men do not always appreciate their ignorance. Those not in the know
are prone to set impractical standards when they judge conduct that has caused injury.
Evidence that the defendant has followed the ways of his calling checks hasty acceptance
of suggestions for unfeasible change.43

   Note that Morris’s second point in defense of the evidentiary rule again
speaks to the effect of the information on the jury’s ability to arrive at a less
                        The Evidentiary Rule of Custom                         173

prejudicial perspective on a situation, rather than to the intrinsic, epistemic
value of the evidence. Morris says the information regarding custom “sharpens
attention on the practicality of caution greater than the defendant” exhibited
and “checks hasty acceptance of suggestions for unfeasible change.”44 The
implication is that, for a sharp jury not acting in haste, evidence of custom
would be redundant. A jury’s attention might just as well have been sharpened
by the well-honed trial skills of an accomplished litigator. We are looking,
however, for an explanation as to why conformity to custom might be substantive
evidence relevant to the issue of negligence – evidence that matters apart from
the cognitive foibles of particular jurors, such as their hastiness or lack of
attention. We see then that just as with Morris’s first rationale for the evidentiary
rule, here too the argument, while of interest to the overall study of norms, does
not increase our understanding as to why conformity to custom has independent,
evidentiary value.

               B. Landes and Posner’s Economic Interpretation
The traditional law and economic approach is a natural place to look for a better
understanding of why conformity to custom may be of evidentiary value in tort
law, as Holmes and Hand wrote the key opinions ensconcing the evidentiary rule
and they have been declared precursors of the law and economics approach.45
There are two related theses to the law and economic approach to the common
law: the positive thesis and the normative thesis. The positive thesis holds
that the common law has in fact developed so as to promote efficiency, and
the normative thesis holds that the law should promote efficiency. It is the
positive thesis that is of present interest because our concern is to understand
the battle for dominance in the common law of tort between the per se rule and
the evidentiary rule, and this is a factual or positive issue.
   Richard Posner is the leading expositor of the “efficiency theory of the
common law,” which he describes as “a system for maximizing the wealth
of society.”46 Consistent with this general thesis, one would expect Posner
to account for the shift from the per se rule to the evidentiary rule in terms
of how this shift promoted more efficient outcomes. Posner discusses the rule of
custom in tort in Economic Analysis of Law, and in The Economic Structure of
Tort Law, written with William Landes.47 In the former work, Posner considers
“Custom as a Defense,” while in the latter work, Posner and Landes analyze
both the defensive and offensive uses of the rule of custom.
   Based on an application of the Coase Theorem, Posner and Landes predict
that when transaction costs are sufficiently low, conformity to custom will be
recognized as a defense to negligence.48 They write: “If transaction costs are
low, an optimal allocation of resources to safety as to other activities will be
achieved by negotiation regardless of the liability rule in force. In these circum-
stances whatever is customary is, at least prima facie, optimal.”49 According
174                           negligent norms

to Posner, transaction costs will be low when the parties stand in an “actual
or potential” bargaining relationship. In such circumstances, “compliance with
the standard of safety that is customary in its industry should be recognized as
a defense.”
    When transaction costs are high, however, we should not expect to see opti-
mal customs. Landes and Posner write that “[i]nsofar as the benefits of a safety
device or practice will inure to people with whom the potential injurer does not
have an actual or potential contractual relationship, he will have no incentive,
in the absence of law, to provide the benefits. There is no presumption in such
a case that the customary level of care is efficient.”50
    Based on this analysis, Landes and Posner formulate the following hypothe-
sis about the common law: “We are led to predict that compliance with custom
will not be a defense in accident cases where transaction costs are high but will
be where those costs are low.”
    Consider how Landes and Posner’s prediction applies to the two versions of
the rule of custom. The per se rule provides a strong defense to negligence claims
for conforming firms. On this strong defense, if the judge was satisfied that there
was a proper custom, the question of negligence would not go to the jury. As
discussed previously, the evidentiary rule does not serve as a per se defense to
negligence, but rather the issue of negligence will remain a fact question for the
jury. So the per se version of the rule of custom corresponds to the description
of the rule Landes and Posner predict to be operative in situations in which the
injurer and victim are in an actual or potential bargaining relationship. Landes
and Posner clearly have in mind a rule whereby the fact of conformity means
the defendant has made a defense with no chance that the issue of negligence
will go to the jury.
    Note the startling result when we apply Landes and Posner’s prediction based
on the positive thesis of efficiency of the common law to the leading cases that
have shaped the modern rule. Their analysis does not explain the rise of the
evidentiary rule; indeed it predicts the opposite result whenever the injurer and
victim stand in an actual or potential contractual relationship. However, as we
saw in Section I, the case law has not developed in this manner. Rather, thanks
to the early leading cases of Behymer 51 and The T. J. Hooper,52 there is little
left to the per se defense despite the fact that in both of these cases, and a large
number of their progeny, there exists a bargaining relationship between injurer
and victim.
    In support of the efficiency thesis, Posner cites the rule for medical malprac-
tice, which usually entitles medical practitioners to the per se rule as a defense.
This is deceptive, however, for, as mentioned earlier, professional malpractice
is the most prominent exception to the modern rule. Because he treats the ex-
ception as the exemplar, Posner cannot explain why the common law treats
conformity by medical doctors and other professionals differently than confor-
mity to custom by nonprofessionals. Subsequent discussion will demonstrate,
                        The Evidentiary Rule of Custom                        175

however, that the treatment of these cases in tort law results from the fact that
doctors’ customs are nonstrategic epistemic customs in which the conformers
have superior epistemic warrant as compared to nonconformers (including both
the victims and the courts).
   In The Economic Structure of Tort Law, Landes and Posner acknowledge
that economic analysis cannot explain the rise of the evidentiary rule. Indeed,
they concede that Hand’s analysis in The T. J. Hooper represents a rejection
of the Coase Theorem.53 There, Hand remarked, “a whole calling may have
unduly lagged in the adoption of new and available devices.”54 On Landes
and Posner’s account, however, a whole industry such as the one involved in
coastal shipping should never be lagging behind, for this is precisely the sort
of setting in which an efficient practice should emerge, as there is a contractual
relationship between the tug boat owner and the barge owner (and possibly the
party whose goods are being transported).
   Landes and Posner attempt to explain away Hand’s decision in The T. J.
Hooper as a mistake. They claim that an efficient practice was in place but
that Judge Hand got the facts wrong. Alternatively, they contend that Hand
may have been confused about the meaning of custom. It is beside the point
to put too much weight on the particular factual dispute in The T. J. Hooper,
however, because there are a large number of cases in addition to Hooper that
contradict Landes and Posner’s analysis. In fact, they concede that Hooper
provides the “classic statement” of the modern rule of custom, but they do
not consider cases before or after it.55 Thus, they refuse to acknowledge that
in Hooper Hand cited to two Supreme Court cases as precedent – Behymer
and Wabash Railway Co. v. McDaniels,56 a decision written by Justice Harlan
which was cited by Holmes as precedent in Behymer. In each of these cases,
the Supreme Court rejected the per se rule despite the fact that the parties had
an actual or potential bargaining relationship.
   As discussed in Section I, Behymer involved a worker who was seriously
injured as a result of being ordered to work on top of an ice-covered railroad car
that was moving uphill. On Posner’s account, the facts in Behymer present a low
transaction cost situation in which the Coase Theorem would predict the emer-
gence through bargaining of an efficient industry custom; hence, conformity
should count as a defense. We see, then, that the Coase Theorem, as applied by
Posner, gives no explanation of Behymer, for Justice Holmes did emphatically
think the evidence of conformity was merely probative, not dispositive.
   While Landes and Posner acknowledge that Hooper is a problem for their
positive economic account, Behymer and McDaniels are devastating because
they are Supreme Court cases that, in a time of federal common law, represented
a rejection of Landes and Posner’s analysis not only in the Second Circuit but
across the land. These cases each involved torts arising in the context of an
employee/employer relationship, which is a relationship between bargainers
that should, according to Landes and Posner’s analysis, produce efficient results
176                            negligent norms

through bargaining. We see then that a tidy set of three leading cases have
brought about the modern rule of custom in tort. All of them contradict Landes
and Posner’s analysis.

It will be useful to conclude with a summary of the discussion of this chapter.
Section I examined the historical competition between the per se rule and the
evidentiary rule. We saw that while the per se rule has not disappeared entirely,
the evidentiary rule has become the dominant modern rule. Having led this
transition, Holmes and Hand nevertheless had precious little to say regarding
the rationale for preferring the evidentiary rule to the per se rule or to the rule that
accords custom no deference whatsoever. To better understand this historical
transformation, we then considered the two most prominent scholarly accounts
in Section II.
    Each of these accounts was seen to be lacking. Morris provided an interesting
account of the jury psychology of the rule of custom, arguing that juries will
tend to be less biased in favor of injured plaintiffs when they are made aware of a
defendant’s conformity to industry custom. Morris’s account did not, however,
speak to the issue of why a court should properly allow evidence of conformity to
custom to go to a jury after concerns regarding jury psychology are factored in.
    Landes and Posner’s law and economic analysis of custom was considered
next. Their account yielded a hypothesis that was seen to be at odds with
the modern rule; it incorrectly predicted the appearance of the per se rule in
situations of actual or potential bargaining between the parties, when in fact
the evidentiary rule is dominant across the board, and courts do not apply
separate rules in bargaining and nonbargaining situations. Moreover, Landes
and Posner’s account did not explain the main exception to the modern rule of
custom. This exception inures to the benefit of professionals such as physicians.
But these groups are neither more nor less likely than nonprofessionals to engage
in the sort of bargaining discussed by Landes and Posner.57
    In one important respect, however, Landes and Posner’s analysis was correct.
This was their focus on choosing an appropriate rule of custom depending on
an assessment of the degree of efficiency of the underlying social practice.
They considered only two modalities, however, when in fact there are four of
interest. The per se rule will make more sense when the custom at issue is
thought to be efficient because this rule will protect the conforming action from
going to the jury where the injurer might be found to be negligent, despite
the fact that the injurious act conformed to a welfare-maximizing custom. The
evidentiary rule will make more sense when the custom at issue is not optimal
but welfare-enhancing because this rule encourages juries to give deference
to the custom, while allowing the jury to find negligence if a superior custom
appears attainable. The evidentiary rule may take a weak form under which
                       The Evidentiary Rule of Custom                       177

conformity is evidence of due care or a strong form under which conformity
serves as a rebuttable presumption of due care. Finally, the rule that accords
conformity no priority may be suitable if sanction-driven customs are either
neutral or detrimental to the production of welfare.
   The problem then is to determine the efficiency conditions for social norms
and customs. Unfortunately, this task is much more complex than suggested by
Landes and Posner’s analysis, for not only are there four rules of custom, but
there are also three importantly different types of customs to which these rules
may apply. To determine whether a particular custom in a particular case is, or
might be, efficient, courts will want to know which type of custom is involved.
This is because different, though overlapping, sets of welfare-maximization
markers apply to each of the three types of custom. When courts have an
estimation of the welfare-producing capabilities of particular customs, they are
then in a position to choose the most applicable rule of custom. The safest
possible world will be the one in which courts are best able to perform this
   In the next chapter, simple payoff matrices of informal game theory will
be used to model the different types of custom. It will be necessary to go out-
side of game theory proper because it exclusively examines strategic structures
and an important class of customs that are of interest for negligence law have
nonstrategic yet rational structures. As the discussion in Part One indicated,
strategic and nonstrategic social practices must be analyzed within the same
framework for a comprehensive account of norms and customs to emerge.
                   A World of Dangerous
                    Norms and Customs

   [M]embers of a close-knit group develop and maintain norms whose content
   serves to maximize the aggregate welfare that members obtain in their workaday
   affairs with one another.1
                                                                 Robert Ellickson

As set out in Part One, there are three distinct types of customs: epistemic cus-
toms, coordination customs, and sanction-driven customs. Epistemic customs
solve nonstrategic, informational problems, while coordination customs and
sanction-driven customs solve strategic problems of two different sorts.
   The Prisoner’s Dilemma, when iterated and solved by a social practice, is
actually a subset of the broader category of sanction-driven customs and norms.
A sanction-driven custom is maintained due to the existence and casual effi-
cacy of sanctions. Along with Prisoner’s Dilemma (hereinafter alternatively PD)
games, games such as iterated Chicken2 or Ellickson’s Specialized Labor Game
may also be solved – or not – depending on the ability of participants to sanc-
tion one another effectively.3 Nearly all applications of informal game theory
to law, to date, have focused on the Prisoner’s Dilemma or collective action
problem.4 One would naturally suppose that tort law would take an interest in
PD-structured customs because tort law is concerned with injuries, and many
PD customs present a situation in which a person is repeatedly in a position to
cause injury to others, either by failing to conform to a safe PD custom or by
conforming to a dangerous PD custom.
   Although PD customs, and sanction-driven customs more generally, are
indeed of great interest, it will be demonstrated that epistemic customs and
coordination customs may be important sources of injuries as well, and so
are equally of interest to tort law. In the following discussion, these rational
                         Dangerous Norms and Customs                            179

structures will be explored in greater depth so that we can better understand
how different customs may have an impact on social welfare in different ways.
As will be discussed in the next two chapters, it is this framework that courts
will need to apply in order to choose an appropriate rule of custom in particular

                    I. Tortious Sanction-Driven Customs
As noted in Chapter Two, the literature on iterated Prisoner’s Dilemmas is help-
ful for understanding the broader category of sanction-driven customs.5 Even
though a one-shot Prisoner’s Dilemma is thought not to be solvable, many the-
orists have discussed the manner by which iteration or repeat play may make
it possible to solve PDs.6 Examples are legion of social situations that are best
understood as solved iterated PDs. Early in the development of the literature on
the topic, Russell Hardin, for example, presented case studies from the envi-
ronmental movement and women’s movement in which these groups were able
to solve their collective action problems in order to pursue group ends.7 More
recently, Elinor Ostrum has studied a large number of commons situations that
were successfully solved.8
    The fact that these situations may be solved does not mean, however, that
they represent outcomes that are optimal. As already discussed in Chapter Two,
Ellickson has developed the leading argument in the legal literature for the ef-
ficiency of social norms that function as solutions to iterated Prisoner’s Dilem-
mas. Ellickson’s account has recently come under fire from Eric Posner, who
contends that there is little reason to think that such norms will be efficient.9 It
will be useful to briefly examine this debate.
    Ellickson develops his position at greatest length in Order Without Law.
In the context of a modern-day ranching and farming community, Ellickson
examines damage to crops, motorists, and automobiles by wandering cattle, and
damage to cattle by motorists.10 One of Ellickson’s main examples involves
practices that have developed with regard to boundary fences that are erected
to control wandering animals. Each party will benefit from the provision of a
boundary fence, but each prefers that the other party bears the cost of erecting
and maintaining it.11 Ellickson calls this the “Specialized Labor Game” and
characterizes it with the payoff matrix in Figure 2.16 in Chapter Two.
    The residents of Shasta County are able to reach the welfare-maximizing
social practice as represented in the northeast quadrant. Ellickson argues that it is
the “close-knitedness” of the community that allows it to solve its fencing prob-
lem. Neighbors who share a common fence may be especially close-knit since
they live physically close together and are thus likely to have repeated interac-
tions over a variety of everyday concerns. Such multiplex12 social relationships
allow members of the community to sanction one another so that conformity
to the socially preferred practice becomes individually rational.13 Ellickson
180                            negligent norms

contends that “the more close-knit a group, the more successful it will be at
generating and enforcing utilitarian norms to govern informal disputes.”14
    Eric Posner argues that social norms of the sort Ellickson discusses are inef-
ficient. The relevance of the disagreement between Ellickson and Posner is sig-
nificant for the present context because the stronger Ellickson’s argument for
presuming the efficiency of custom is, the wiser will be a court’s choice to adopt
the per se rule of custom (at least for collective action customs). On the other
hand, the stronger Posner’s argument, the better the grounds for adopting the
evidentiary rule – or perhaps even the rule that accords sanction-driven customs
no special status.
    For purposes of argument, Posner assumes that customs may sometimes be
efficient. Nevertheless, external circumstances can be relied upon to change such
that the custom will no longer be efficient. Posner considers the Coasean railroad
sparks story and Demsetz’s account of the development of property rights in land
among native tribes in Canada. He argues that, even if there are processes at work
in these types of examples to move the custom in an efficient direction, such pro-
cesses take time, and in the meantime the custom will be inefficient. With regard
to the fact pattern in Coase’s original article, Posner poignantly observes that
perhaps customs are always left in the wake of ever-changing circumstances:

[T]he farmer and the railroad would abide by the deal for such a long time that gradually
the village gossips would forget about the old norm and accept the new pattern of
behavior as reflective of a new norm (perhaps without even realizing that this norm or
the pattern of behavior is new). Still, this story must be highly unsatisfactory for the
believer in efficient norms. For during the periods of transition the reigning norm is an
inefficient one. Furthermore, one would expect that even as the old norm is gradually
replaced by the new norm, continuing changes in the economy and in technology will
render even the emerging new norm inefficient.15

    In this passage, Posner implicitly understands the norm to be the linguistic
item shared among the third-party “village gossips.” It is the norm that has not
changed sufficiently quickly, Posner argues, so as to keep up with the change in
behavior that has already occurred between the railroad and the farmer. The con-
ception of a norm at play here is problematic, however. With regard to the
production of social welfare, it does not matter that the linguistic item bantered
about by the village gossips is lagging, for it is not this linguistic bit that produces
welfare – it is the behavior. And, by assumption, the railroad and the farmers
have changed their behavior in a welfare-maximizing manner.16
    In the example borrowed from Demsetz, however, Posner presents a more
compelling challenge to the Ellicksonian framework, as here the practice itself
represents a failure to solve a commons problem. Once the traders arrived and
began to offer valuables for furs, each native gained an incentive to seize animals
at a much higher rate. This produced a common-pool problem: No one had an
incentive to ensure that the furs remained a renewable resource.
                          Dangerous Norms and Customs                                 181

    As Posner discusses the situation, the parties are able to remedy the commons
problem by adopting new customs. As Posner notes, however, the problem is that
it took them a few hundred years to do so. With regard to Demsetz’s example,
Posner writes:

Demsetz’s theory may be correct. But note that the system of property rights did not
emerge until the middle of the 1700s. Fur trading had begun in the early 1500s and had
reached significant proportions by the middle of the 1500s. Thus, the efficient norm may
have lagged by two centuries. State intervention at any time in the interim (if it had been
possible) would have promoted efficiency.17

    While Posner’s observation that there was an inefficient gap of two cen-
turies is significant, we cannot merely assume that state intervention in the
interim would have been efficient.18 With this caveat in mind, Posner’s point is
well taken; Ellickson should pause at this example in which order without law
emerged, albeit at a snail’s pace. Even if Ellickson accepts the force of this exam-
ple, however, he may fairly respond that such lags are evidently not preordained,
as witnessed by Shasta County where the norms did not lag in this manner.19
    At this point, we must conclude that the debate between Ellickson and Posner
is inconclusive. Posner has given good reason to suppose that PD customs in
close-knit communities may sometimes be inefficient, but his argument cannot
be interpreted as applying to all such customs in all such situations. On the
other hand, Ellickson has provided a strong argument based on his analysis of
close-knit communities for supposing that norms will sometimes be efficient.
But his argument does not in any obvious way counteract the problem raised
by Posner.
    Both Ellickson and Posner qualify their arguments in ways that remove some
of the distance between their positions; Ellickson acknowledges that close-
knittedness is a matter of degree,20 and Posner acknowledges that what matters is
relative efficiency.21 In effect, Ellickson acknowledges that social norms will not
always be the product of completely close-knit groups and, therefore, will not
always be fully efficient; Posner, in effect, acknowledges that less than optimal
customs are nevertheless of interest to welfare-promoting legal institutions.
    Consider the implications of these two theorists’ analyses in terms of the
rule of custom. In those situations in which there are no “social imperfections,”
the implication of Ellickson’s analysis is that the per se rule should be applied
because the customs at issue are likely to be efficient. By contrast, the impli-
cation of Posner’s analysis is that the evidentiary rule should be applied, as the
practice is suboptimal and hence the jury should be afforded room to incentivize
change to status quo practices.
    Ellickson is agnostic as to whether social norms may be welfare-maximizing
in groups that are not close-knit.22 Posner similarly restricts the application of
his conclusions to close-knit groups.23 The whole force of the literature on the
collective action problem would strongly suggest, however, that when groups
182                          negligent norms

                                      Driver B

                                        Not Speeding        Speeding

                      Not Speeding           3, 3              1, 4

          Driver A
                        Speeding             4, 1              2, 2

                Figure 8.1 The Custom of Speeding in Automobiles

are not close-knit, the resulting customs will not be welfare-maximizing.24 In
such circumstances, there would appear to be clear reason not to prefer the per
se rule. The question would remain, however, whether the evidentiary rule or
the no-priority rule were preferable.
   To answer this question, it will be necessary to consider customs arising in
a non-close-knit environment in more detail. The familiar examples of collec-
tive action problems do not involve tortious situations and so do not directly
concern us.25 There are many social practices, however, that have the structure
of collective action problems but ones in which a failure to reach a solution
may produce serious injuries. Some of the leading threats to one’s health in
civil society have the structure of failures to solve n-person collective action
problems. Carrying handguns, failing to practice safe sex through condom use,
and speeding in automobiles all have a similar structure: significant numbers of
individuals prefer that others engage in the safer practice, but they themselves
want to be able to free ride by performing the more dangerous practice when it
suits them. The result is that there are socially significant amounts of each of
these activities.
   In the example of speeding in automobiles modeled in Figure 8.1 failure to
solve the collective action problem leads to a dangerous situation because – as
public service ads are fond of saying – speed kills. The world we live in is one in
which this collective action problem goes largely unsolved; people speed with
frequency, and others are injured or die because of it.
   A rational actor prefers that others adhere to a custom of not speeding in
automobiles because this actor will thereby be subject to less risk.26 But the
actor will want to be able to speed when it is desirable to do so. This puts
others at risk, however, so they prefer that the actor not defect from the practice
of observing the speed limit. The strategic situation presented by speeding is
represented with the game-theoretic matrix shown in Figure 8.1.
   Both Driver A and Driver B most prefer the situation in which other people
cooperate in conforming to the safer driving speed, while the driver is able to
defect from the practice by speeding when it is desirable to do so. The southwest
                         Dangerous Norms and Customs                              183

quadrant represents the payoffs to the parties when A is the speeder, and the
northeast quadrant represents the payoffs to the parties when B is the speeder. If
A defects (that is, fails to conform to the cooperative practice and instead speeds)
while B does not (the southwest cell), then A receives 4, her most preferred
outcome, and B receives 1, her least preferred outcome. A is happiest, as she
benefits from others’ safe driving but gets to speed herself when she so desires.
Likewise, if B speeds while A does not (the northeast cell), B receives 4, her most
preferred outcome, and A receives 1, her least preferred outcome. If both speed,
each receives the second least preferred outcome of 2 (the southeast cell), while
if both refrain from speeding, each receives the second most preferred outcome
of 3 (the northwest cell). This is true if we make the plausible assumption that
each would prefer to live in a world in which no one is speeding rather than in
a world in which all are speeding.
    The problem these drivers face is that, if rational, each will notice that it is in
each driver’s interest to speed when the driver desires to, no matter what other
drivers do. In other words, speeding is the dominant strategy.27 The result is that
each of the drivers will speed when it is desirable to do so. This will put them
in the southeast cell, giving each the second worst outcome. If they had both
refrained from speeding, each would have ended up in the northwest cell, with
the second best outcome. Thus, when each chooses the individually rational
strategy, both end up worse off than if they had been able to restrain themselves
and choose the strategy that would provide for the jointly preferred outcome.
We end up with a custom that represents a failure to solve an n-person Prisoner’s
Dilemma and thousands of people die on the roads every year because of this
    Speeding is a situation in which there is a lack of close-knitedness between
the participants to the practice. They are not credibly able to threaten sanctions
against one another in future interactions because the nature of driving is such
that under most plausible scenarios, it is a largely anonymous activity. This
anonymity encourages free riding because actors will be unable to make cred-
ible threats to sanction malfeasants in the future, as anonymity means there
is no shared future. The result is a custom that represents a failure to solve a
collective action problem. There is a social practice of speeding even though
safety would dictate that this practice not exist. Because this custom is not
welfare-maximizing, a court that sought to maximize welfare would surely not
apply the per se rule in order to insulate this custom. The court must then choose
between the evidentiary rule and the no-priority rule. If speeding is hazardous,
the fact that others speed would appear not to affect the danger of the injurer’s
action and accordingly the no-priority rule is better.
    In sum, this section has performed an initial exposition of sanction-driven
customs in a negligence context by considering examples in which such customs
are welfare-maximizing and examples in which they are not. Before going into
greater detail in examining the importance of these examples for the rule of
184                          negligent norms

custom, however, it is necessary to first examine in greater detail the other two
types of custom.

                     II. Tortious Coordination Customs
As explicated in Part One, coordination customs may emerge in situations of
iterated coordination problems or games. In contrast to the iterated collective
action problems discussed in Section I, players in coordination games do not
have defection in their hearts. Rather, given the conformity of others, each wants
to conform to the prevalent practice, even in circumstances in which the player
could defect without fear of detection.
    The most widely known game of coordination is that made by societies
deciding which side of the road on which to drive. This custom appears to
pass the Pareto test. An outcome is Pareto superior when it makes at least one
person better off and no one else worse off.28 With the example of driving
on the right-hand side of the road, this situation is obtained. The driver from
England, accustomed to driving on the left-hand side of the road, benefits from
the choice to conform to the American practice when in America, and no one
will be worse off due to this conformity. The same is true for the other drivers
who choose to conform to the practice of driving on the right-hand side of the
road – they will be made better off and no one will be made worse off. As this
practice currently exists, with full conformity more or less in force, can altering
this practice make anyone better off without also making someone else worse
off ? It would seem not. This coordination custom appears, then, to be efficient.
    The best known analysis of coordination problems of a sort that may lead
to coordination customs is that of David Lewis, who argues that “conventions”
have the structure of “proper coordination equilibria.”29 Lewis defines a proper
coordination equilibrium as a combination of actions such that no one would
have been as well off had any one agent acted differently.30
    For present purposes, the important aspect of Lewis’s account is the claim that
not only does the actor have a rational interest in conforming to the convention,
but the other conformers have an interest in each other actor’s conformity as
well. An important implication of the particular strategic structure that Lewis
examines is that, because other conformers have an interest in one’s conformity,
they will use sanctions to make this conformity more likely.31 On Lewis’s model,
then, sanctions will be as pervasive in a world of coordination customs as they
are in a world of customs that serve as solutions to iterated Prisoner’s Dilemmas.
    In fact, however, the minimal condition for the maintenance of a coordina-
tion custom is simply that each conformer receives a coordination benefit for
conforming, given the conformity of others. Other conformers may be indiffer-
ent or even suffer detriment due to one’s conformity. To adapt an example from
Chapter Two to the present context, consider the norms and customs that govern
how law students should dress when interviewing for jobs in various sectors of
                        Dangerous Norms and Customs                            185

the legal profession. These are coordination customs: Individuals receive coor-
dination benefits for conforming to the applicable dress code, unwritten though
it may be. Such customs will be maintained by acts of conformity despite the
fact that others are either indifferent to one’s conformity or may even prefer
that one fail to conform. Because of these facts, others will not use sanctions
to incentivize conformity; rather, conformity will be driven by the pursuit of
coordination benefits.
    If most others wear a suit to job interviews, then I will benefit from doing so
too. And if most others do not wear a suit to job interviews, then I will benefit
from not doing so. For if I do not do what most others do, I will be conspicuous,
and this could hurt my chances of being hired. Thus, I benefit from coordinating
with the behavior of others. But most others who also wear suits to interviews
may be indifferent to my doing so, as it has no effect on them; that is, they
receive the same payoff whether I coordinate with them or not. Accordingly,
this situation has the structure of a coordination equilibrium but not that of a
proper coordination equilibrium.
    In Figure 2.9, the conformers were represented as being indifferent to the
conformity of any particular newcomer, but they may as well actively disprefer
that this person fail to conform. This sort of strategic structure is seen even
more clearly in another example from Chapter Two.
    I have a friend who works for a Washington law firm where, although the
nonpartners officially have three weeks vacation, the norm is to take two. In-
spired by my friend’s example, Figure 2.10 was called the Associates Vacation
    In this situation, I prefer to do whatever others do. If they all take two weeks
vacation, then I also want to take two weeks so as not to stand out as a slacker.
If they take three weeks, I will prefer three weeks as well, so as to enjoy the
longer vacation and so as not to be ostracized as obsequious. My co-workers,
on the other hand, prefer that I do whatever they are not doing. If they take
two weeks, they prefer that I take three weeks so as to stand out as a slacker,
making them look better. And if they all take three weeks, they prefer that I
take two weeks so as to stand out as obsequious. Thus, my best choice of action
is dependent on that of the others. I will receive the coordination benefit for
taking two weeks if they take two weeks or for taking three weeks if they take
three weeks. The others lose out due to my coordination, however; they suffer
a coordination loss.
    The current situation at my friend’s firm is that nonpartners take two weeks.
This situation is in equilibrium because each person could not have done better,
given what the others did. Given that the others are taking two weeks, each
prefers to take two weeks as well. Thus, the regularity will persist; the lawyers
have reached equilibrium. But this is not a coordination equilibrium because it
is not the case that no agent wishes any one agent – either herself or someone
else – to have alone acted differently. Rather, each agent wishes any other agent
186                           negligent norms

to alone act differently from the rest. Yet such a game is a coordination norm
in my account. It is a pattern of normatively governed behavior instantiated
in a group and maintained by conformity. The conformity is explained by the
desire to achieve the coordination benefit. Intuitively, it is clear that the lawyers’
conforming practice at my friend’s law firm should count as a norm and, thus,
it is a virtue that an account denominate it as such.
    Political and legal theorists have not paid adequate attention to games of
coordination such as those just examined, apparently due to the view that these
games are unimportant for social theory.32 The idea appears to be that because
it is in everyone’s interest to participate in socially beneficial coordination
games, people will freely do so of their own accord, and hence, by implication,
there will be no reason for legal intervention. As the following examples will
demonstrate, however, coordination customs merit review for potential judicial
intervention based on the potentially suboptimal level of injuries flowing from
    Consider first an example of a coordination custom in which the injuries are
shared more or less equally among the participants. In New York, people often
cross streets by first going to the center (double-yellow) line and then crossing
to the other side at the first chance. This behavior occurs both at crosswalks
and between them. It is not the custom for cars to stop to let pedestrians cross
to the other side. Rather, pedestrians are responsible for spotting an opening in
the stream of cars and making the crossing on their own. In San Francisco, the
custom is strikingly different. Pedestrians mostly walk at crosswalks with the
traffic light (though deviations occur with some frequency). When a pedestrian
does cross to the center line, the practice is for motorists to stop to let the
pedestrian cross all the way, even if this means stopping or slowing down in the
middle of the block.33
    To act contrary to the established practice of each community creates dan-
gerous situations. When New Yorkers go to San Francisco and attempt to cross
the street between crosswalks, they are surprised to discover that cars stop to
let them pass to the other side. For motorists to suddenly stop is dangerous, and
yet the pedestrian-friendly ethic is so strong that it is nevertheless the motorist
norm in such situations. Pedestrians accustomed to the New York custom soon
learn of this difference in motorist behavior and appear to modify their behavior
accordingly, by not crossing to the center strip in the middle of the block, or at
least by doing so less often.34
    Now consider the New Yorker driving in San Francisco. This driver will
at first expect pedestrians to know that motorists do not stop for pedestrians.
Because pedestrians do in fact expect motorists to stop, a dangerous situation
results. The pedestrian in San Francisco who walks to the center line – say, a
newly arrived New Yorker or a San Franciscan in a hurry – maintains an expec-
tation that she will be able to continue. The San Franciscan driving in New York
is similarly dangerous if he acts like he is back home and hits the brakes for
                        Dangerous Norms and Customs                            187

pedestrians attempting to make the dash between vehicles. Because hitting the
brakes is contrary to local custom, the driver behind him will not be expecting it,
which is dangerous. Under either scenario then, unless a traveler immediately
conforms to resident custom, this traveler threatens to be the but-for cause of
serious collisions. Once there is but-for causation, this driver may be one jury
decision away from being found the proximate cause of any resulting injuries.
    Coordinating with the behavior of others is paramount in this situation.
One has reason to conform to the custom that is extant in one’s community.
Because others behave in a certain manner, one has additional reason to act in the
same manner. Thus, as a practical matter, informal convergent social practices
importantly influence what is reasonable because they importantly influence
the sorts of actions that will in fact harm others.
    This example makes graphically clear how important it is to pay attention to
the coordination customs of the community in which one finds oneself. The be-
havior of others will often exert a gravitational pull such that one is well advised
to do as others are doing. The august adage that one should do as the Romans
when in Rome is often well-heeded. In the preceding example, the gravita-
tional pull of the convergent social practice is so strong that it is dangerous to
act against it. This example demonstrates, then, how dramatically coordination
customs may affect the concrete, day-to-day substance of what it means for
people to take due care.
    For present purposes, the important question to ask with regard to this prac-
tice is which rule of custom would be most appropriate. For the reasons just
discussed, conformity to local customary practices clearly deserves some de-
gree of judicial support. The question then is which rule of custom is most
appropriate. The per se rule appears to make the most sense because not only
is conformity a good idea, but also failure to conform will actually be highly
dangerous. Not all coordination customs have this last feature. In some situa-
tions, there may be a coordination effect in place such that others’ conformity,
to some extent, incentivizes one’s own conformity; nevertheless, the risk from
defection may be small or the loss slight.
    This is the situation with the custom involved in the well-known case of
Brown v. Kendall.35 In Brown, the parties’ dogs were fighting. The defendant
was beating the dogs with a wooden stick in order to separate them, while plain-
tiff looked on. The defendant moved back from the dogs, striking them while
he backed up. He moved toward plaintiff with his back toward him. Defendant
raised the stick high to make another swat and in so doing accidentally struck
plaintiff in the eye with the tip of the stick, inflicting a severe injury.
    To modern ears, Brown may seem quaint. Yet, to the rural and village inhabi-
tants of times past, dogs served a variety of important functions such as hunting,
protection of livestock and poultry, and protection of the homestead from root-
less men.36 These dogs were necessarily less domesticated than today’s pets
and more likely to fight. In this context, it is not strange that practices would
188                          negligent norms

emerge around such activities as keeping dogs apart and having recognized
means, such as the use of walking sticks, for breaking up fights that did erupt.
In a community where people often carried walking sticks and it was accepted
to use them to break up dog fights, such facts would bear significantly on the
reasonableness of the manner in which Mr. Kendall used his walking stick.
    There is an element of coordination in this example such that once the custom
is established, villagers will wish to conform and will care that others conform.
With convergent social practices, doing things in one manner often precludes
doing things in another manner. Once social practices are underway, expecta-
tions develop among people that strangers they meet will act with the practice
in mind. An important part of why it is reasonable for an individual to break up
a dog fight with a stick is that this is the custom and so others’ expectations will
be formed with some degree of cognizance of this prospect. The reasonable
individual action, then, is the one that conforms to the established practice.37 It
is not the fact that the custom is efficient that makes the individual conforming
act desirable, but rather the fact that the custom has a coordination structure
and that it is instantiated.
    There is nevertheless an important difference between the customary practice
in Brown and the varying pedestrian practices found across the two coasts. With
these latter practices, failure to conform is dangerous. This is not true with the
custom in Brown. If the defendant had not used a stick to break up the fight,
a dangerous situation would not have been created. Thus, the evidentiary rule
may be more appropriate as it recognizes that conformity was in fact made
more reasonable by the conformity of others, while not creating a safe harbor
for conforming activity which would have the effect of deterring individuals
from ever experimenting with other potentially preferable practices.
    Note that both the New York/San Francisco (“NY/SF”) pedestrian custom
and the custom of using sticks to break up dog fights in Brown are situations
in which a possibly suboptimal social practice may be maintained through an
extended series of individually rational conforming actions. It may be the case
that, for example, New Yorkers would all be better off in a world in which the
San Francisco norm was instantiated, and yet individual New Yorkers cannot
reasonably act as if it is, given the background in which other New Yorkers
do not. Because of the manner in which expectations of community members
are shaped by extant practices, it may be the case that it is rationally justified
for the defendant to conform to the extant practice even though the practice
is suboptimal, such that all members of the community would prefer that all
members of the community instead observed a different practice.38 Assume for
purposes of argument, for example, that the New York pedestrian and driver
practice is not welfare-maximizing (See Figure 8.2).
    For each NY resident, such as NY Resident A, it is the case that this resident
receives a higher payoff, 2, for conforming to the NY custom, given that others
are also conforming to the NY custom, than she would receive for conforming
                         Dangerous Norms and Customs                              189

                                         Other NY Residents

                                            NY Custom            SF Custom

                          NY Custom             2, 2                1, 1
        NY Resident
                          SF Custom             1, 1                3, 3

           Figure 8.2 Inefficient New York Pedestrian and Driver Custom

to the SF custom, for which she would receive 1. Conforming acts of this
sort work, however, to maintain the suboptimal NY custom, as represented in
the northwest quadrant in which all conformers receive 2, as compared to the
southeast quadrant in which conformers to the SF custom would all receive 3.
    We see, then, that the mere fact that all the individual conforming acts that
serve to maintain a coordination custom are individually rational is no guarantee
that the custom itself is socially preferable. Furthermore, just because there is
no collective action problem in maintaining the custom, and the risks created
by such a practice are borne by the participants to the practice (and not by third
parties), there is no reason to assume that the optimal custom will result.
    The question, then, is: What is the relevance of this for courts that want
to choose welfare-maximizing customs? In the discussion of sanction-driven
customs in Section I, we saw that when a custom is optimal, there is reason to
apply the per se rule, but not otherwise. The reason is that when the custom is
optimal, then it should be insulated from the jury. In the type of situation just
discussed, however, the situation is different. The custom is suboptimal, and yet
it may not make sense to allow the custom to go to a jury. For unlike the situation
in the SD case, here it would not have been welfare-promoting for the particular
injurer to have acted otherwise. And it will not work to try to incentivize future
actors to behave differently by altering their incentives. Given that most people
will still be conforming to the established custom, suboptimal though it may
be, we do not want particular individuals to act differently (even though were
all others to also do the same, the result would be welfare-promoting). Given
that the suboptimal practice is instantiated, it may be as welfare-promoting to
insulate it with the per se rule as with the evidentiary rule. Under the evidentiary
rule, if a court finds a particular litigant liable, future actors might be incentivized
to act differently, even though doing so would be unlikely to promote social
    Consider next an example in which the suboptimality results from injuries to
third parties. In Rhine v. Duluth, plaintiff, who was traveling in an automobile,
190                          negligent norms

collided with defendant’s locomotive as plaintiff’s car crossed defendant’s train
tracks on a foggy night. Rhine charged the Duluth Railroad with negligence
for not using warning flares at the intersection.40 Plaintiff claimed he could
not see the train because of bad weather but could have avoided the accident if
defendant had issued a minor warning. Plaintiff claimed that there was an extant
custom of flare use and the Duluth railroad had negligently failed to conform.
Defendant denied the existence of the custom. The court found that although
flares were sometimes used by this railroad, there was not enough evidence to
establish the existence of a custom, but had a custom been established, it would
have been dispositive in favor of the plaintiff.
    The practice of flare use has the structure of a coordination game. Just as
a person wants to drive on the same side of the road as others, a railroad has
reason to do what others are doing when it comes to using flares. If others are
using flares, then people will expect to see flares and will tend to drive faster
and with less attention than if the practice is not to use flares. Because people
will expect flares, a particular railroad had better use them. Whereas, if other
railroads are not using flares, then a particular railroad also wants not to use
flares. This saves the railroad some expense, but more importantly, it might
easily confuse drivers if a particular railroad used flares, contrary to custom.
This coordination custom has the structure shown in Figure 8.3.
    The other railroads besides the Duluth either receive 2 or 1 depending on
whether or not they use flares. Other things being equal, they prefer not to
use flares because it is costly to use them. Their payouts are not affected by
the Duluth railroad, however, because they are indifferent as to what it does
individually with regard to flare use.41
    The Duluth, on the other hand, wants to do what the other railroads do. It has
four rankings of preferences. It would most like not to use flares in a situation
where others are not using them. All would save on the cost of using flares
and the Duluth does not stand out as the lone defector (and so is not creating
exposure to damages that may result because a driver was confused by the

                                      Other Railroads

                                           Flares            No Flares

                          Flares            2, 1               0, 2
                        No Flares           1, 1               3, 2

                      Figure 8.3 Railroad Flare Use Custom
                         Dangerous Norms and Customs                             191

railroad’s nonconforming behavior). The Duluth’s next preference is to use
flares when the other railroads are using them. When other railroads use flares,
cars may drive faster near intersections, which makes not using flares relatively
more dangerous; accordingly, it makes the Duluth more open to exposure.
    The Duluth’s third preference is not to use flares when the others are using
them. And finally, it least prefers to use flares when the others are not. In each of
these situations, the Duluth increases exposure to liability by doing an activity
that will go against general expectations and so will increase risk. Of the two
choices however, the railroad least prefers to incur the expense of flare use.
Note the coordination effect; being careful is a function of coordinating with
the behavior of others.
    Duluth is an example of the second sort of potentially inefficient coordi-
nation norms, those in which the suboptimality may result from the fact that
the coordination custom creates risks for third parties. These third parties are
motorists who will be unlikely to be in a position to have an impact on whether
railroads use flares or not. In situations involving injuries to third parties, the ap-
propriate test to apply for purposes of determining welfare maximization is the
Kaldor-Hicks Test, which asks whether, in principle, the cost of the risks borne
by third-party highway users could be compensated out of the gains acheived by
the conformers.42 Prima facie, there is no reason to suppose that coordination
customs will always, or even frequently, pass this test. Hence, there is no reason
to think coordination customs of this sort will typically be efficient.
    Courts, then, need to consider two issues to determine whether these cus-
toms are likely to be efficient: first, whether the class of injuries to third parties
that results from these customs is relatively minor in comparison to the benefits
obtained by the conformers due to the existence of the custom; second, if the
first condition does not hold, whether the class of injured third parties are close-
knit so as to be in a position to influence the behavior of the conformers to the
coordination custom. Note that close-knittedness matters for coordination cus-
toms but for a different reason than discussed by Ellickson. Unlike PD customs,
coordination customs may be efficient in communities that are not close-knit,
that is, in those situations in which the Kaldor-Hicks criterion happens to be
satisfied despite the lack of close-knitedness of the community.
    The question, then, is: Which rule should courts apply? From the bare fact
that a coordination custom is at issue, courts will not be able to determine which
of the three rules to apply. The coordination custom could be strongly welfare-
promoting, strongly welfare-decreasing, or anything in between, depending on
the outcome of the Kaldor-Hicks Test.

                       III. Tortious Epistemic Customs
With epistemic customs, people conform in order to take a short-cut in terms
of the amount of information they gather before making decisions. Rather than
192                           negligent norms

gather all the information necessary to make a fully informed decision, people
often instead conform to convergent social practices of the communities in
which they live. Though such actions are based on less information, they may
nevertheless be rationally justified on balance if the savings achieved in the
cost of gathering information are likely to be greater than the loss from making
decisions with less investment in information. Customs are obvious candidates
for rational epistemic conformity, as customs provide for repetitive behavior
so that people can learn about the consequences that have flowed from similar
sorts of actions in the past.
   For example, the recently emergent norm of wearing bicycle helmets has an
epistemically motivated maintenance structure. This is clearly a safety norm
because one can easily imagine parents prescribing bicycle helmet use to their
children, or bicycle shops displaying posters depicting the virtues of helmet
use.43 This norm is maintained by nonstrategic conforming acts, as the payoffs
helmet wearers receive will be unaffected by whether others are also wearing
helmets (except, perhaps, in the unlikely circumstance of a head-on collision;
and then, perversely, the nonconformity of others might actually turn out to be
a good thing for the narrowly rational helmet wearer). Rather, people plausibly
are seen to conform out of a sense that, by doing so, they are taking advantage of
emerging social knowledge to the effect that the bother and expense of helmet
use is merited by the increased personal safety produced by such use.
   The general idea that one might conform to prevailing social practices in
order to economize on search costs has its roots in the rule utilitarianism of
John Stuart Mill, as discussed in Chapter Three.44 The idea has been endorsed
by leading economists of both the Chicago and Austrian schools.45
   Some epistemic customs involve no material risk of harm to others and so
are of no direct interest to tort law. This is true of wearing bicycle helmets,
which serves the interests of the bicyclists themselves without material third-
party effects. Other epistemic customs create risks of injury mainly for parties
not directly involved in the practice. This is true, for example, of customs in the
medical profession, which are maintained by doctors’ conformity to medical
procedures that are prevalent in their community. Under such practices, the
patients of the conforming doctors are put at risk.46 Yet other epistemic customs
create risks for participants in the practice and third parties as well. For example,
use of cellular phones in automobiles is becoming a customary social practice
despite some indication of increased hazard of auto accidents, which pose a
threat to all.47
   The sort of situation in which epistemic conformity has the most obvious
appeal is where complex or arcane factual elements would need to be much
better understood before a fully informed decision would be possible. Tort suits
involving industry standards are often clear examples of complex conformity
motivated by the concern to economize on the cost of information. In Sledd
v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, for instance, the plaintiff
                         Dangerous Norms and Customs                            193

charged the Washington, D.C., metro system with negligence for having an
unsafe train platform.48 The plaintiff was injured when her foot became stuck
between the platform and the train. Plaintiff argued that the distance between the
train and the platform was too great. Defendant pleaded conformity to design
custom as a defense. This is an epistemic custom because the conformity is
best understood in nonstrategic terms. Agents conform to save on the costs of
determining on their own the optimal sort of platform to build. The practice is
not strategic, as the other conformers do not care if the D.C. Metro conforms
to the custom or not.
    Note that because agents want to conform to epistemic customs, sanctions
are not needed for the maintenance of such customs. This is important to keep
in mind because as already noted many theorists consider sanctions to be at the
heart of social norms and customs. Sanctions, in turn, are an important element
in the efficiency account of norms. Ellickson argues that social norms will be
efficient when they are the product of close-knit groups.49 As we have seen,
sanctions play a crucial role in Ellickson’s argument. The close-knitedness of
groups allows people to credibly threaten sanctions against noncooperators.50
    Epistemic customs raise the issue of whether or not social norms and customs
might be efficient, despite being maintainable in a sanction-free environment.51
It would appear that epistemic customs may sometimes be efficient as judged
by the Pareto criterion. Pareto efficiency is the test by which an action is deemed
efficient if at least one person is made better off by it and no one is made worse
off.52 A simple example of an individual conforming to an epistemic prac-
tice would appear to satisfy this criterion: I conform to a prevalent social practice
in the belief that it is more sensible to do what others are doing than to figure
out on my own what the best choice is. This is true, for example, of the norm of
wearing bicycle helmets. If helmet use has become a norm among a particular
social group I admire and whose judgment I generally respect, I may simply
begin wearing a helmet myself, rather than expend the effort to research whether
doing so is, in fact, cost-justified. I benefit from the epistemic conformity, and
no one loses, thus satisfying the Pareto criterion. A practice maintained by a
set of such acts might plausibly be seen as efficient.
    With SD practices, people will free ride when they think they can get away
with it. When they do, inefficient norms will result. But people conform to
epistemic customs because it is in their direct interest to do so, and accordingly
they have no desire to free ride. Hence, were an epistemic custom efficient in
the first place, there is no reason to suppose it would degenerate as a result of
the free-rider problem. Nor is there a danger of getting locked into suboptimal
coordination equilibria, a problem that may arise with coordination customs,
as discussed in Section II. If one wishes to act differently from the prevailing
epistemic custom, one may simply do so; one must drive on the same side of
the road as others (a coordination custom), but one can wear a bicycle helmet,
or not, and others will be indifferent.
194                           negligent norms

    Given that epistemic customs may clearly be efficient and given that they
are not susceptable to the pitfalls of sanction-driven customs or coordination
customs, there would appear to be good reason for courts to apply the per se rule
to insulate these customs. In fact, however, things are not so simple. Despite
examples such as that of wearing bicycle helmets, there is clear and compelling
evidence that epistemic customs may sometimes be inefficient.
    There are two important classes of situations in which epistemic customs
may be inefficient. The first is where the custom is efficient for the participants
in the custom but where third parties are adversely affected by the custom and
the losses to these parties are not compensated by the gains to the participants.
Such an epistemic custom would fail to pass the test of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency.
The second is where the practice that is conformed to happens to be less welfare-
producing than another possible practice, but no one knows it as each adherent
fails to gather enough information to make an independent determination.
    Consider the following example of the first sort of potential inefficiency.
If buying German automobiles had become a norm among a particular social
group whose judgment I generally respect, I may simply “buy German” myself
rather than expending the effort to read Consumer Reports or other comparable
sources of information. I benefit from the conformity, and none of the other
conformers loses, so, from the perspective of this group, the Pareto criterion is
satisfied. But if American automobile dealers, manufacturers, and workers lose
out in the process, then the custom is not Pareto efficient, although it may still
turn out to be Kaldor-Hicks efficient.
    As an example of the second manner in which epistemic customs may be
inefficient, consider the medical custom of performing tonsillectomies, which
has the structure shown in Figure 8.4.
    A doctor might reasonably choose to perform tonsillectomies given that the
prevailing medical custom in the doctor’s professional community is to perform
tonsillectomies.53 Note that the payoffs in such a situation are not strategic; other
doctors do not do better or worse for their patients depending on the choice made

                                       Other Doctors


                     Tonsillectomies         3, 2               0, 1

         Doctor A
                                             1, 2               2, 1

                        Figure 8.4 The Tonsillectomy Game
                        Dangerous Norms and Customs                           195

by doctor A.54 But the expected utilities for A’s patients are, however, affected
by what other doctors do. If they generally perform tonsillectomies, then A
expects that her patients will fare better by having a tonsillectomy (northwest
cell), and if other doctors do not perform tonsillectomies, then A expects that
her patients will do better by not having the procedure (southeast cell).55
    This example highlights a deeply troubling feature of epistemic medical cus-
toms, namely that, though they may be maintained by the conduct of doctors
who justifiably believe that conforming to them will maximize expected utility,
the resulting custom may nevertheless be less welfare-enhancing than an al-
ternative. Note further that the existence of close-knit groups might perversely
facilitate a sanctioning regime that worked to perpetuate such inefficient prac-
tices. With epistemic customs, then, not only are close-knit communities not
required for efficiency, but they may also be an impediment.
    Evidence strongly suggests that tonsillectomies may not be a health-justified
practice.56 Yet, it seems clear that in the model whereby epistemic customs are
maintained by acts justifiably believed to maximize expected utility, such cus-
toms may be maintained for significant periods of time.57 While the potential
for suboptimality will be present for all epistemic customs, the epistemic cus-
toms of doctors are nevertheless the most striking examples because these are
typically contexts in which the custom represents the combined efforts by the
conformers to take the utmost care. Despite these sometimes heroic efforts, the
resulting customary practices may nevertheless fail to be welfare-maximizing.
    In sum, then, we see that even though epistemic customs may not be sus-
ceptable to all of the suboptimality problems of the other types of custom, they
are nevertheless susceptible to two problems of this sort. The final question to
address is: What rule of custom makes sense given all the features of epistemic
customs just considered?
    Consider first the rule that best addresses the fact that whole groups may
conform to customs that are in reality suboptimal due to the incorrect belief
that the custom is optimal. On first appraisal, one would expect this fact to argue
strongly in favor of the evidentiary rule over the per se rule. The per se rule
would insulate the rule from change despite the fact that a court might think
the group of conformers was wrong such that a better custom was possible.
The evidentiary rule would allow the jury to give deference to the custom while
allowing it to find liability and thereby incentivize a shift toward an alternative
if it deemed the current practice suboptimal.
    The per se rule may be appropriate, however, when the conformers have
“superior epistemic warrant” for their view regarding the welfare-enhancing
properties of the epistemic custom. No one may know with certainty at a par-
ticular moment in history whether medical procedure A is better than medical
procedure B, but doctors may nevertheless be better situated than anyone else –
courts included – to make educated guesses. From an epistemic perspective,
their guesses may be more warranted.
196                          negligent norms

    If doctors have difficulties in determining welfare-maximizing customs, how
are courts going to be in any better position to do so? In fact, one would ex-
pect courts to be in a worse position. Epistemic customs, then, raise the issue
of institutional competence of the courts to make determinations regarding
the welfare-producing propensities of particular customs.58 The issue of insti-
tutional competence is sometimes raised in comparing the courts versus other
branches of government.59 But here the issue emerges in comparing the relative
competence of informal, social processes of professionals versus the compe-
tence of formal, legal processes.60
    The determination of who has superior epistemic warrant should properly be
taken into account by courts in applying a rule to epistemic customs. The per se
rule naturally suggests itself in situations in which a conforming group such as
doctors or other professionals have a superior epistemic warrant in comparison
to courts, as this rule would insulate the custom from changes that cannot be
warranted as welfare-enhancing. When the court is in as good of a position as
the conformers to make an educated guess regarding efficiency, however, then
the evidentiary rule may be justified because it allows courts to take account
of the conformers’ combined judgment regarding efficiency, but the court also
maintains the option to substitute its judgment for that of the conformers. Note
that doctrine draws the line with professionals versus nonprofessionals, but that
the logic of the analysis draws the line at those with superior epistemic warrant.
In principle, any group of conformers could argue that their appraisal of the
welfare-enhancing value of one custom over another has superior epistemic
warrant and therefore deserves the protective status afforded by the per se rule.
    Courts may also compare the professional customs of various local commu-
nities. A court may then criticize one group’s customs on the basis of another
group’s customs. In other words, courts may implicitly hold that one group has
superior epistemic warrant to another group. In the past, courts applied the “lo-
cality rule.” Under this rule, the actions of doctors would be judged by a local
standard; that is, courts would ask whether the particular action conformed to
the local medical custom when considering the question of negligence. Mod-
ern courts have, for the most part, however, done away with the locality rule;
instead, they require doctors to conform to national medical practices in order
to come within the safe harbor of the per se rule.
    Recall that two types of suboptimality situations may arise with epistemic
customs. The second type of situation may arise with regard to third parties
injured by the custom. The example involving the Washington, D.C., metro has
this structure. The various mass transit authorities conform to a complex design
custom to economize on information costs. If they fail to maintain an optimal
practice, third-party users of the metro system will suffer. In principle, these
third-party potential victims will be in a better position when they are close-
knit, because they will be able to use sanctions to incentivize the conformers
to take due precautions. The problem, however, is that it is not enough for
                        Dangerous Norms and Customs                           197

the third parties to be close-knit with one another; they must be close-knit
with the conformers as well. This will be a difficult criterion to meet in the
context of the present example because the various metro systems are spread
out geographically, not only across the United States but also across the world.
In other situations, however, third parties will be close-knit with the group of
conformers. In these circumstances, the potential victims should be able to
incentivize the conformers to internalize the risks.

Chapter Two developed a tripartite account of the rational structure of custom.
Chapters Three, Four and Five demonstrated the relevance of this account for
moral and political theory, both under the Hobbesian motivational assumption
and the more normatively expansive Humean motivational assumption. In the
chapter, we saw that the tripartite account also has relevance in tort law as con-
formity, or lack of conformity, to all these types of custom may produce the
sorts of injuries that are the subject matter of tort. We saw that whether customs
may be maintained in a safe and efficient manner will depend on a number
of features. The broad lesson is that courts will need to pay greater attention
to these features of the various types of customs if courts are to best promote
welfare. The next chapter looks in greater detail at the tasks faced by courts.
  Regulating the Rule of Custom to Create
            Safe Social Norms

   What usually is done may be evidence of what ought to be done, but what ought
   to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usually is
   complied with or not.1
                                                         Oliver Wendell Holmes

In Chapter Seven, we saw that while courts nominally consider the evidentiary
rule as the proper rule of custom in negligence cases, their actual treatment of
customs is more complex. Courts sometimes give customs greater deference
(by means of the per se rule) and other times give custom no deference (by
means of the no-priority rule). The analysis in Chapter Eight demonstrated that
each of the three types of rational custom has distinctive welfare-enhancing ca-
pabilities. Factors – such as whether the incidence of injury falls on conformers
or third parties, whether these groups are close-knit, whether the conformer has
superior epistemic warrant, whether the Kaldor-Hicks Test favors conformers,
and whether an optimizing alternative practice is available – matter differen-
tially depending on the type of custom at issue.
    In this chapter, I will argue that in order to account adequately for the struc-
tured complexity of the relevant social phenomena, it will be necessary for
courts to implement a more fine-grained rational actor account than is sug-
gested by those game-theoretic accounts that focus on the Prisoner’s Dilemma
or collective action problem. In terms of the general analysis, thirty-seven dis-
tinct modalities of rational custom will be identified. In particular, the tripartite
model of rational custom will be used to explicate the role of custom in the
leading cases of Behymer and Hooper. Looking closely at these cases calls into
doubt the basic justification of the dominance accorded to the evidentiary rule
by Holmes in Behymer and Hand in The T. J. Hooper. After all, only eight
of the thirty-seven applications of the rule of custom call for the evidentiary
                        Regulating the Rule of Custom                         199

rule. The per se rule is preferable for nineteen of the situations; and the no-
priority rule, for ten of the situations.

 I. Judicial Determination of a Rule of Custom: Thirty-Seven Subtypes
                          of Rational Custom
An implication of the fact that the rational structure of customs is complex
is that courts must apply a more fine-grained approach to their application of
the rule of custom in tort cases than has occurred in the past if courts are to
take best advantage of the welfare-enhancing capabilities of customs. It will
be useful to organize the factors that courts should consider into a graph for
use by courts that deal with parties pleading custom in tort cases. By providing
a graphical display of the set of relevant factors, it is hoped that courts will
be more self-aware and purposeful when choosing from among the competing
rules of custom. See Figure 9.1.
    The chart in Figure 9.1 is meant to be a tool for welfare-maximizing courts
when they deal with a litigant who seeks to introduce the fact of conformity or
lack of conformity to a custom as having probative value regarding the issue of
negligence. To use the chart, a court must first identify which of the three types
of custom is at issue: a sanction-driven custom (column A, rows 1–10), a coor-
dination custom (column B, rows 11–25), or an epistemic custom (column C,
rows 26–37). This choice is made by determining whether conformity is due
to the desire to avoid sanctions, the desire to reap a coordination benefit, or the
desire to economize on the cost of information. After a court has determined
which sort of custom it is dealing with, it can then apply the appropriate set
of “Welfare-Maximization Markers” from among the total set represented in
columns D–N of the chart, in order to arrive at an applicable rule of custom
(columns R–U).

   A. Ten Subtypes of Sanction-Driven Customs Rationalize Four Distinct
                             Rules of Custom
After a court has determined that it is dealing with a sanction-driven custom,
its focus will be restricted to rows 1–10 on the chart. Rows 1 and 2 capture
the situation where the sanction-driven custom only produces injuries to the
conformers themselves (column D). When this is the case, the most important
efficiency consideration is whether the group is close-knit. When the group is
close-knit (row 1, column F) then the applicable rule of custom is the per se rule
(column R), as close-knitedness should allow this group to solve its strategic
problem in order to produce an efficient outcome. However, if the conformers
are not close-knit (row 2, column G) and there is no reason to think they would
solve their problem, then the applicable rule of custom is the no-priority rule
(row 2, column U) because it properly affords conformity no privileged status.2
                 Types of Custom                                           Welfare Maximization Markers                                              Rules of Custom
       Collective   Coordina Epistemic     Incidence of Injury          Close-Knittedness         Conformer has         Kalder-Hicks        Per Se   Evidentiary Rule            No-
        Action         tion      Customs                                                             Superior           Test Favors          Rule                              Priority
       Customs       Customs                                                                        Epistemic           Conformers                                              Rule
                                                                  Conformers        Third Parties  Yes      No    Yes       Un-        No            Regular         Pre-
                                             Con-     Third      Yes      No        Yes       No                          certain                                  Sumption
                                           formers    Parties
             A         B          C          D           E       F        G        H        I       J      K      L          M         N      R        S              T           U
        1    X                               X                   X                                                                            X
        2    X                               X                            X                                                                                                       X
        3    X                               X           X       X                 X                                                          X
        4    X                               X           X       X                         X                      X                           X
        5    X                               X           X       X                         X                                 X                         X              X
        6    X                               X           X       X                         X                                           X                                          X
        7    X                               X           X                X        X                              X                                                               X
        8    X                               X           X                X        X                                         X                         X              X
        9    X                               X           X                X        X                                                   X      X
       10    X                               X           X                X                X                                                                                      X
       11              X                     X                   X                                                                            X
       12              X                     X                            X                                       X                           X
       13              X                     X                            X                                                  X                         X              X
       14              X                     X                            X                                                            X                                          X
       15              X                     X           X       X                 X                                                          X
       16              X                     X           X       X                         X                      X                           X
       17              X                     X           X       X                         X                                 X                         X              X

       18              X                     X           X       X                         X                                           X                                          X
       19              X                                 X       X                 X                                                          X
       20              X                                 X                X        X                              X                           X
       21              X                                 X                X        X                                         X                                                    X
       22              X                                 X                X        X                                                   X               X              X
       23              X                                                  X                X                                                  X
       24              X                                                  X                X                                                                                      X
       25              X                                                  X                X                                                           X              X
       26                         X          X                   X                                         X                                  X
       27                         X          X                            X                                X      X                           X
       28                         X          X                            X                                X                 X                         X              X
       29                         X          X                            X                                X                           X                                          X
       30                         X          X           X       X                 X                       X                                  X
       31                         X          X           X       X                         X               X      X                           X
       32                         X          X           X       X                         X               X                 X                         X              X
       33                         X          X           X       X                         X               X                           X                                          X
       34                         X          X                            X                        X                         X               X
       35                         X          X                            X                        X                                   X     X
       36                         X          X           X       X                         X       X                         X               X
       37                         X          X           X       X                         X       X                                   X     X
                                                                                                                                             19                8                 10

      Figure 9.1 Judicial Determination of a Rule of Custom by Application of Welfare-Maximization Markers to Various Types
      of Custom
                         Regulating the Rule of Custom                          201

    Rows 3–10 represent sanction-driven customs in which the risks of injury
fall on third-party nonconformers to the custom (either as well as, or in addition
to, injuries to the conformers). The eight different possible outcomes depend on
whether the conformers or third parties are close-knit and on how the Kaldor-
Hicks Test applies to the situation,3 given the various costs and benefits of these
    When the conformers and the third parties are close-knit (row 3,
columns F, H), the custom should be efficient because the third parties should be
able to use various sanctioning devices to incentivize the conformers into con-
forming with optimal practices. Accordingly, the per se rule will be appropriate
(row 3, column R). When the conformers are close-knit and the third parties
are not (row 4, columns F, I), however, we should not expect the custom to be
efficient. But we cannot necessarily think it inefficient either. What we know is
that the conformers are not forced to internalize the costs of their conformity.
But this does not gainsay the possibility that the overall benefit to the conform-
ers might win out in a Kaldor-Hicks Test over the losses to the third parties.
Consequently, a welfare-maximizing court will need to perform a Kaldor-Hicks
    After performing the test, if a court thinks that the practice is such that the
benefits to conformers outweigh the costs to third parties (row 4, column L),
it will be inclined to support the custom by means of the per se rule (row 4,
column R). Alternatively, because of the need to perform a Kaldor-Hicks Test, a
court might feel that there is a significant fact issue regarding a balancing of risks
and benefits and so let the issue of the merits of the custom go to a jury, on the
theory that twelve heads are better than one.4 Accordingly, the court will apply
the evidentiary rule or the presumption-shifting rule (row 5, columns S, T).
If a court thought, however, that the benefits to conformers clearly did not
outweigh the costs to third parties, the court might utilize the no-priority rule
(row 6, column U) in order to avoid supporting the custom.
    The last four situations involving sanction-driven customs are ones in which
the conformers are themselves not close-knit (rows 7–10, column G). Other
things equal, we should expect customs maintained in this type of strategic
situation to be inefficient as the custom represents a failure by the conformers
to solve their strategic problem. Surprisingly, however, the efficiency of the
practice may turn on whether the third parties are close-knit. If third parties are
close-knit (rows 7–9, column H), they may be able to pressure the conformers
into customs that serve the interests of the third parties.
    The best rule of custom will depend on an application of the Kaldor-Hicks
Test. If the Kaldor-Hicks Test favors the conformers, the court will not lend
support to the practice, and so the no-priority rule will be appropriate (row 7,
column U). But if the Kaldor-Hicks Test favors the third parties, a court will
support the custom with the per se rule (row 9, column R). If the court is
uncertain as to the results of the Kaldor-Hicks Test, however, it will let the issue
202                           negligent norms

go to the jury (row 8, columns S, T). The last situation is where neither the con-
formers nor the third parties are close-knit (row 10, column G, I). Here, there is
no reason to treat the custom specially because the lack of close-knitedness
means that conformers will not be incentivized to internalize costs. Accord-
ingly, the no-priority rule is appropriate (row 10, column U).

   B. Fifteen Subtypes of Coordination Customs Rationalize Four Distinct
                              Rules of Custom
Courts will be able to identify coordination customs by the feature that par-
ticipants in the practice conform because of the conformity of others and not
because of the sanctions of others. Courts should next consider incidence of
injury, that is, which group or groups suffer injuries under the custom. If only
the conformers suffer injuries (rows 11–14, column D), then the next question
is whether the group is close-knit. If it is (row 11, column F), then a court can
expect the group’s coordination custom to be efficient. This will be true be-
cause the close-knitedness will promote a cost-justified level of injuries within
the group. Accordingly, a court will be justified in choosing the per se rule
(row 11, column R) as there are grounds for believing that the practice is wel-
fare promoting and no distinct grounds for supposing that it is not.
    When the conformers are not close-knit (rows 12–14), then a court will need
to take account of the possibility that the injuries to the conformers outweigh the
benefits to the conformers. Because the group is not close-knit, the incidence of
injuries will be disconnected from the attainment of coordination benefits from
the custom, as each participant conforms as a result of the coordination benefits
this participant receives and with disregard for the risks created for others. It will
be necessary to perform a Kaldor-Hicks Test to compare the benefits against
the costs. Usually, when this test is applied to groups, the group of beneficiaries
and the group of victims are distinct groups. Here, however, the membership
of the groups will be significantly overlapping.5
    Courts will choose an appropriate rule of custom depending on their assess-
ments of how the Kaldor-Hicks Test comes out. If a court determines that the
benefits clearly outweigh the costs (row 12, column L), it will opt for the per se
rule, and if it determines that the costs clearly outweigh the benefits (row 14,
column N), then it will opt for the no-priority rule. If the court is uncertain,
however, as to whether the costs outweigh the benefits (row 13, column M), it
may once again give the issue to the jury to decide (row 13, columns S, T).
    In the next set of cases, the incidence of injuries is shared by both the
conformers and third parties (rows 15–18, columns D, E). When both groups
are close-knit (row 15, columns F, H), circumstances most favorable to the per
se rule obtain. Because both groups are close-knit, only those risks that are
cost-justified should be present (row 15, column R). When either or both of the
groups are not close-knit, however, then a court will need to consider whether
                         Regulating the Rule of Custom                         203

the losses or the gains are greater, that is, apply the Kaldor-Hicks Test. Courts
will want to take account of the benefits to the conformers, on the one hand, and
the losses to both the conformers and third parties combined, on the other hand.
When the Kaldor-Hicks Test appears to strongly favor conformers (row 16,
column L), the per se rule will be justified (row 16, column R), and when the
test strongly favors third parties (row 18, column N), the no-priority rule will
be justified (row 18, column U). And when the test bears an uncertain result
(row 17, column M), a court may once again leave the issue for a jury to decide
(row 17, columns S, T).
    The last category of coordination customs are those in which the incidence
of injuries falls solely on third parties (rows 19–22, column E). Under these
conditions, it may matter whether the group of conformers are close-knit. If
both the conformers are close-knit and the third parties are close-knit (row 19,
columns F, H), then the third parties may have a chance of incentiving the
conformers to internalize the cost of injuries such that the level of risk to third
parties that results will be cost-justified, and accordingly the per se rule will be
applicable (row 19, column R).
    If the conformers are not close-knit but the third parties are (row 20–22,
columns G, H), then the third parties may incentivize conformers not to take
part in the practice or to take part in a manner that is less injurious to third
parties. The resulting custom may have a lower level of injuries to third parties
than would be cost-justified. A Kaldor-Hicks Test will be needed to deter-
mine if the benefits to the third parties from avoiding injuries outweigh the
costs to the conformers from not being able to follow the custom that would
otherwise be preferable. If the test favors supporting the custom (third-party
benefits outweigh conformers’ costs), the per se rule will be justified (row 20,
column R). If the test favors rejecting the custom because the benefits to third
parties do not outweigh the losses to the conformers, then the no-priority rule
is appropriate (row 21, column U). But if the test results are uncertain, the issue
is best left to a jury (row 22, column S, T).
    Finally, if both the conformers and the third parties are not close-knit (rows
23–25, columns G, I), a court will have no reason to think the level of injuries is
optimal. Once again, it will choose a rule of custom depending on whether the
Kaldor-Hicks Test favors supporting the custom (row 23, column R), rejecting
the custom (row 24, column U), or giving an indeterminate answer (row 25,
columns S, T).

     C. Twelve Subtypes of Epistemic Customs Rationalize Four Distinct
                             Rules of Custom
Welfare-maximizing courts will be able to pick out epistemic customs from
the fact that the dominant motivation for conformity is to economize on search
costs. Just as with the two strategic types of custom, actors pay attention to what
204                          negligent norms

others are doing, but they do so for the nonstrategic reason that they take others’
conformity as providing them with information as to the wisdom of their own
    Injuries are not inherent to the structure of epistemic customs. Neverthe-
less, in the process of conforming to these customs, people may be injured.
Courts will naturally worry least about injuries that befall the conformers
themselves as a result of their own actions, as these are most likely to be
internalized into the cost structure of the individual conformer. Injuries that
befall either second-party conformers or third-party nonconformers are more
    The first item to consider on the chart’s welfare-maximization menu bar
is on whom the incidence of injury falls. When injuries fall solely on other
conformers (rows 26–29, column D), the group will be most likely to have
efficient practices when it is close-knit (row 26, column F) because then mem-
bers will be able to incentivize one another to internalize the costs of injuries
to other conformers by means of the multitentacled sanctioning power close-
knitedness provides. Thus, the per se rule is appropriate (row 26, column R).
When injuries fall on conformers and the group is not close-knit (rows 27–29,
column G), there should be no expectation that the custom is efficient, however.
If the benefits of conformity clearly outweigh the costs (row 27, column L), a
welfare-maximizing court will apply the per se rule so as to protect the practice
(row 27, column R). But if a court is clearly convinced of the opposite (row 29,
column N), it would apply the no-priority rule (row 29, column U). Perhaps
more often than not, however, judges will be uncertain and will defer to a jury,
in which case either the evidentiary rule or the presumption-shifting rule will
be appropriate (row 28, columns S, T).
    Next are those coordination customs in which both conformers and third
parties suffer injuries (rows 30–33, Columns D, E). When the third-party vic-
tims are close-knit (row 30, column H), they should be able to use informal
sanctioning powers to incentivize the conformers to internalize the cost of the
injuries. Accordingly, the per se rule will be appropriate (row 30, column R).
When the third parties are not close-knit, however, the choice of rule will turn
on the results of a Kaldor-Hicks Test comparing benefits to conformers versus
costs both to third parties and conformers. Once again, the appropriate rule will
turn on whether the judge thinks the test goes strongly toward either one side of
the equation or the other (row 31, column L or row 33, column N), or whether
instead there is uncertainty best resolved by a jury (row 32, column M).
    As noted earlier, the customs of professionals are accorded the main excep-
tion to the dominant evidentiary rule. We can make sense of this exception in
terms of the superior epistemic status that professionals may possess. It is often
difficult to know which of a number of choices will best promote social welfare.
Inevitably, courts must engage in a guessing game, although these guesses will
be more or less well grounded, depending on the amount of effort courts and the
                         Regulating the Rule of Custom                         205

parties expend to produce and evaluate the available information.6 Nevertheless,
courts may see themselves as in at least as good of a position as the litigants
to evaluate the welfare-producing capabilities of various practices.7 Because
courts see themselves in as good of a position as the parties to determine if a
custom is optimal, they employ the rule that makes most sense depending on
their evaluation of whether a more optimal rule is feasible. But with the customs
of professionals, particularly doctors, courts are inclined to show deference, out
of respect for the relative disparity in their degrees of epistemic warrant.
    Courts have recognized the privileged epistemic status of professional cus-
toms as grounds for extending the per se rule to the custom. The question then
is how does the consideration weigh against the other welfare-maximization
markers applicable to epistemic customs that were just considered. The rele-
vant cases are represented in rows 28–29 and 32–33, which are cases in which
courts would otherwise not choose the per se rule.8
    The efficiency markers that are most relevant are “close-knitedness” and
the Kaldor-Hicks Test. When a group lacks superior epistemic status, the fact
that it is close-knit may hurt it, as the group will be less exposed to superior
practices that it might otherwise consider adopting.9 If the group is in an epis-
temically superior position, however, the fact that the group is close-knit may
allow it to more effectively maintain the practice while continuously monitor-
ing to ensure that the practice continues to be what, in their opinion, is the best
    With regard to the Kaldor-Hicks Test (columns L–N), note the peculiar
situation that obtains for professionals bound by fiduciary duties to their patients
or clients. The professionals will tend to act in ways that promote the injured
parties’ interests, due to their fiduciary obligations. Thus, there will not be an
issue of balancing the gains to conformers versus losses to injured parties as
has been the case with the earlier applications of the Kaldor-Hicks Test. What
matters is not a balancing of competing interests, but a judgment regarding
which type of action is in fact the welfare-maximizing one. Thus, we are back
to the question of superior epistemic warrant. Accordingly, the per se rule may
be the appropriate choice for the situations represented in rows 34–37 (which
are identical to rows 28–29, 32–33, respectively, except that the conformers
have superior epistemic status).

             II. Rational Reinterpretation of The T. J. Hooper
Of the thirty-seven modalities of rational customs, the per se rule is preferable in
nineteen modalities, the evidentiary rule in eight modalities, and the no-priority
rule in ten modalities. Note that the evidentiary rule is not the best choice in
a majority of these situations. This fact should make courts call into question
the predominance of the evidentiary rule. Instead of reflexively applying the
evidentiary rule when custom is pleaded, courts must instead look more closely
206                          negligent norms

at the rational structure of the custom. As demonstrative examples of how courts
may better promote efficiency when applying the rule of custom, the rational
choice account of norms and customs developed in Section I will be applied to
The T. J. Hooper and Behymer in the final two sections.
    In Behymer, there were two overlapping customs; in The T. J. Hooper, there
is debate over whether there even was a custom. This is a striking fact given
that this is the case that famously established the modern rule of custom in tort.
Learned Hand contends that there was not: “But here there was no custom at all
as to receiving sets; some had them, some did not; the most that can be urged
is that they had not yet become general.”11
    Richard Posner argues that there was a custom: “It was customary for coastal
tugboats to be equipped with radios; 90 percent of such boats were equipped
with them, and one of the tugboats involved in the case had a radio – it just was
not in working order.”12 Posner claims that there is a discrepancy between the
lower court opinion and Hand’s opinion regarding the existence of a custom,
and that the lower court got it right. Posner claims that Hand was confused.13
There is, however, a better explanation than the one provided by Posner; Hand
had a definite purpose in mind in contraverting the finding of the lower court
regarding the presence of custom, which was to use the case to promote the
evidentiary rule. Hand had the flexibility to do so because the social situation
at issue, radio use among ocean-going tugs along the Atlantic coast, was in the
gray area between custom and noncustom.14
    The lower court had implicitly supported the per se rule by finding that the
defendant was negligent for not having done what many others in its line of
commerce were doing. In other words, the lower court had accepted conformity
to custom as a per se defense to negligence but found that, on the facts, defendant
could not establish this defense as it had failed to conform. In applying the per
se rule, the lower court was following a respectable line of Second Circuit
authority on the subject.15 In contrast, by allowing that there may have been
a custom, Hand could then go on to make the point that despite the existence
of a custom, the defendant could still be negligent, as a whole industry may
lag behind in the provision of due care. As result of this fact, the evidentiary
rule is preferable to the per se rule. Hand explicitly attacked the per se rule
and promoted the evidentiary rule by playing up the fact that a whole industry
may lag behind in the provision of due care so that it can never be enough to
look to a particular agent’s conformity to industry custom.16 We see, then, that
Hand used this case as an opportunity to bring the Second Circuit in line with
Holmes’ decision in Behymer.17
    The Second Circuit’s handiwork is best understood by examining the rational
structure of the underlying situation in The T. J. Hooper. When embarking
on such an analysis, the first question to ask is whether the practice has a
naturally sanction-driven maintenance structure, or a completely voluntary
maintenance structure. In other words, is the practice one that the conformers,
                         Regulating the Rule of Custom                         207

other things equal, want to conform to, or is it the sort of practice in which
people only conform out of fear of sanctions? If the former, the next question
is whether voluntary conformity is for coordinational or epistemic reasons.
    The first question amounts to asking whether a tugboat would want to free
ride on the practice of other tugs with respect to the use of radios. Consider first
the scenario in which either there is no custom or the custom in place is that
tugs are not outfitted with radios. In either of these situations, is there a reason
why a particular tugboat would want to defect from the custom? One plausible
answer is that a tugboat would want to be outfitted with a radio in order to be
able to offer its customers better, safer service than competing tug companies.
This is a Prisoner’s Dilemma because, if all the tugboats could coordinate on
not having a radio, they would all be better off. But there will be a plausible
incentive to defect from this practice to be the one tug operator who is able to
offer safer service at little expense.
    Now consider if the custom is to have radios. Would there be reason to wish
to defect from the practice? One reason to do so would be to economize on
the cost of doing business. Such a possibility might plausibly obtain if, due to
general compliance to the custom, potential customers naturally assumed that,
as such safety precautions were standard, this tug offered them as well. Business
plans such as this may well backfire, however. The other tugs benefit from
promoting a better, safer service at a very inexpensive cost, while this business
could quickly suffer if it developed a reputation as a business that cuts corners.
Given the inexpensive cost of radios, it seems highly unlikely that a tug would
choose a business strategy whereby it failed to equip itself with a radio in
order to economize, in an environment in which other tugs were equipped with
radios.18 Installing and using radios appears, then, as if it was probably the
dominant choice.
    Notice that, because there is a natural incentive to do the type of action
that in conglomeration will constitute a non-negligent custom, there is no need
for a legal rule to create incentives to nudge the custom in a safer direction.
Accordingly, even if the per se rule of custom were in place, there would be
no fear that the law would function so as to maintain a safe harbor in which
an inefficient custom would be protected from change. This can be seen by
supposing the per se rule is in effect such that a tug will not be liable for injury
due to lack of a radio if other tugs also did not have radios. This would not
cause a tug to refrain from installing a radio, for as mentioned above, a tug
might nevertheless want to offer the radio as a safety feature that the other tugs
are not offering.
    In The T. J. Hooper, then, the lag in the practice whereby some – but by no
means all – tugs had radios, is better explained by the time it takes for social
change to come about. It is certain that over time nearly all the tugs would have
been retrofitted with radio receivers even if the decision in The T. J. Hooper had
not come along. It is not surprising that an industry might lag in the adoption
208                          negligent norms

of a safer, new technology. Change takes time; even in the field of health care
where lives are at stake, such lags occur.19
    Compare Hooper to Behymer. We saw in Section I that, in Behymer, the per
se rule would allow an inadvertent safe harbor in which coordination customs
that have dangerous effects on third parties could develop. The shift from the per
se rule to the evidentiary rule was necessary to overcome a strategic situation in
which once a suboptimal situation obtained, individual railroads that conformed
enjoyed a safe harbor in the dangerous activity. By contrast, the tug owners in
The T. J. Hooper had no use for a safe harbor in which tugs failed to equip
themselves with radios. We see, then, that while The T. J. Hooper is often
cited as a paradigm case whose facts regarding industry lags serve to justify
the evidentiary rule, Behymer better illustrates the sort of problematic social
situation in which the evidentiary rule was truly necessary, namely, one in which
the strategic structure allowed for the maintenance of suboptimal customs. In
other words, contrary to conventional wisdom, Behymer, not Hooper, is the
leading case establishing the logic of the modern rule of custom in tort law.

  III. Texas & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Behymer: The True Leading Case
Recall that in Behymer, the railroad workers participated in a dangerous prac-
tice which involved working atop a railroad car moving over uneven terrain
under icy conditions. This railyard custom may plausibly be seen as having the
same strategic structure as the dangerous custom of speeding in automobiles
represented in Figure 8.1. If a worker wished to remain employed, this worker
did not have the freedom to not participate in the dangerous practices, just as
an individual driver cannot be free from a custom that allows speeding in au-
tomobiles. Judging by the behavior of other workers, the railroad would have
been able to find a replacement willing to work under the dangerous conditions.
In these circumstances, each employee who preferred to work in a safer work
environment was adversely affected by the willingness of others to cooperate
in the dangerous practice, and would have been better off if other workers had
refused to participate.20
    The railroad workers each face an n-person Prisoner’s Dilemma. If the work-
ers could band together, they may be able to collectively bargain with the railroad
in order to bring about the safe practice as a concession without significantly
lowering their compensation. But bringing about this cooperative result will
be difficult because of the free-rider problem. This situation has the strategic
structure shown in Figure 9.2.
    Defection from the cooperative outcome, performing the dangerous activity,
is the dominant strategy. If the other workers are willing to conform to the
dangerous practice, then a particular worker will want to as well, so as not
to be fired for substandard work performance. But if others refuse to perform
                         Regulating the Rule of Custom                        209

                                      Other Workers

                                        Safe Practice

                      Safe Practice         3, 3               1, 4

        Worker A
                                            4, 1               2, 2

      Figure 9.2 The Worker’s Custom in Texas & Pacific Railroad v. Behymer

the dangerous activity, a worker will nevertheless want the option of sometimes
performing this activity in order to either be among those who keep their jobs or
be among those who get newly hired due to their willingness to work under such
conditions. Thus, regardless of the choice made by other workers, a particular
worker will want the option of performing the dangerous practice when it is
suitable, just as each of the drivers wants the option of speeding when it is
suitable.21 In terms of the matrix presented in Figure 9.2, the workers will end
up in the southeast cell with each receiving her second least preferred outcome,
instead of ending up in the northwest cell with each receiving her second most
preferred outcome.
   Given the strategic situation of the workers, consider how Holmes’s decision
promoting the evidentiary rule over the per se rule helped their position vis-` -a
vis the railroad. Note that the per se rule creates a safe harbor, which precludes
injured workers from prevailing in a lawsuit. The fact that other railroads besides
the Texas & Pacific are each individually conforming, such that the custom is
maintained, will mean that any particular railroad may successfully invoke the
custom as a defense to negligence. By contrast, the evidentiary rule favors the
injured workers – as a dangerous custom such as the one at issue in Behymer
would have gone to a jury where a victim might well have done better than
under the per se rule, and could certainly have done no worse.
   Under the evidentiary rule, courts allow the fact of conformity to custom (or
deviation from it in the case of the offensive use of the rule) to be introduced as
evidence that may go to a jury. But, the fact of conformity will not as a matter
of law constitute a per se defense to negligence. Accordingly, the evidentiary
rule does not provide a safe harbor that would allow for the maintenance of
a dangerous coordination custom. The fact that other railroads are performing
one practice rather than another will not have a strategic effect on whether a
particular railroad should rationally do so as well. If some particular railroad
does a dangerous act and an injury results, it knows that it will not win on
summary judgment due simply to its conformity to industry custom, but may
instead have its actions evaluated by a jury. The possibility that the case may
210                            negligent norms

                                       Other Railroads
                                                             Safe Practice

                                              2, 2                0, 1
         Texas &
        Pacific R.R.
                       Safe Practice          1, 2                1, 1

      Figure 9.3 The Railroads’ Custom in Texas & Pacific Railroad v. Behymer

go to a jury if an injury occurs to one of its workers is an unwelcome prospect
for any firm in any industry.22
    To better understand the importance of the shift from the per se rule to the
evidentiary rule, it will be helpful to model the manner by which the strategic
relationship between the parties changes depending on the legal rule in place.
What will be seen is that the legal rule affects the strategic structure of the
underlying situation, which in turn might be expected to affect the custom that
results. In particular, the per se rule creates ripe conditions for the emergence and
maintenance of a coordination custom, whereas the evidentiary rule encourages
an epistemic custom.
    With coordination customs, such as driving on the right or left side of the
road, one wants to do what others are doing as there is a positive coordination
effect in coordinating with others. Under the per se rule, a railroad wants to have
its employees working on top of icy railroad cars if other railroads are, and not
if other railroads are not. This is like the example of driving on the right or
left-hand side of the road; each wants to do what others are doing. The previous
matrix represented the strategic structure among the railroad workers. Now
consider the strategic structure of the railroads themselves.
    If other railroads are pursuing the dangerous practice, then the Texas and
Pacific Railroad prefers to do the same (northwest quadrant) because each rail-
road has more freedom to move its railroad cars about as it pleases. But if other
railroads are following the safe practice, then the Texas & Pacific Railroad
prefers to do the same (southeast quadrant). This is true because, if other rail-
roads are performing the safe practice, then for a particular railroad to perform
the dangerous practice is to expose itself to serious risk of liability because it will
stand out from the other railroads. In contrast to the example of driving on the
right or left side of the road, however, the railroads are not neutral between
the dangerous and safe cooperative outcomes; their payoffs are greater under
the dangerous practice.
    Notice that, because it is in the interest of each to do what others are cur-
rently doing, whichever of the two practices happens to prevail initially will be
                         Regulating the Rule of Custom                          211

self-maintaining. In other words, even if all the railroads would prefer to follow
the dangerous practice, if the safe practice is in place, it will be in the interest
of each particular railroad on each particular occasion to conform to the safe
    An implication of this effect is that if a suboptimal practice somehow be-
comes instantiated, it will be self-perpetuating.23 This will be true despite the
fact that if all the railroads could coordinate, they would all be better off switch-
ing to the dangerous practice. In such a circumstance, the railroads face a col-
lective action problem of their own as each of the railroads would do better
if they were all performing the dangerous practice, but each acting alone will
always choose to conform to the safe practice. Therefore, the safe practice will
be perpetuated. This collective action problem may be difficult to solve because
there will be significant transaction costs involved in organizing a wholesale
change in a practice of this sort among a group of railroads (not to mention
antitrust concerns). Practically speaking, then, the railroads may get stuck in
the suboptimal practice.
    In fact, however, the railroads in Behymer were not locked into a suboptimal
practice. Instead, the railroads had a custom in place that was efficient for
them but put their employees at great risk. Given that the per se rule would
perpetuate the dangerous practice once it existed, Holmes had reason to support
the evidentiary rule because it would incentivize railroads to reevaluate the
practice of putting employees in dangerous situations. Holmes’s decision in
Behymer may, therefore, plausibly be seen as evincing an intuitive appreciation
of the different possible structures of customs and, in particular, the manner in
which coordination customs may provide a safe harbor for dangerous activity
when they are allowed to flourish under the per se rule.
    Note that the custom of the railroads that will emerge under the evidentiary
rule will be nonstrategic.24 Just because the custom is nonstrategic, however,
does not mean that a particular railroad will not have a reason to conform to
the custom; it is just that the reason for doing so will be nonstrategic. A rail-
road may well conform to the customary practice for epistemic reasons. The
fact that the other railroads do not allow their employees to work under dan-
gerous conditions might be taken as evidence that this course of action is also
preferable for the Texas & Pacific Railroad. In other words, instead of undertak-
ing a detailed cost–benefit analysis of the two competing practices, a railroad
might forego the expenditure and instead conform to the prevailing practice.
A custom maintained by conforming acts of this sort, motivated as they are by
the desire to save on information costs rather than due to strategic considera-
tions, is an epistemic custom.
    We have seen, then, that to understand the structure of Beyhmer fully, it
is necessary to appeal to all three of the possible rational structures of norms
and customs. The workers face a collective action problem that may preclude
bargaining for a safe railyard practice, while the railroads themselves are in
212                           negligent norms

a game of coordination under the per se rule of custom. Finally, under the
evidentiary rule, the railroad may develop an epistemic custom.

The book began with an epigram from Bacon that emphasized the important
extent to which people’s behavior conforms to their surrounding customary
practices. We have seen that courts will need to pay attention to the rational
structure of these surrounding customary practices if they are to promote social
welfare. In particular, there are thirty-seven possible situations for the three
rational structures of customs all combined. We saw that courts will be able
to determine which rule of custom to apply to each situation by applying the
welfare-maximization markers to the three types of custom.
    Chapter Seven first explored the doctrinal battle that took place during the
first half of this century between the per se rule of custom and the evidentiary rule
of custom. We saw that under the lead of Holmes and Hand, the evidentiary rule
emerged as dominant. This raised the issue of why, on the merits, custom should
have this elevated role in negligence law. Chapter Seven began to consider this
question by examining Clarence Morris’s classic account of custom in tort.
Morris argues that juries should be apprised of relevant customs because such
knowledge would incline jurors to be less prejudicial in their deliberations.
Morris does not, however, provide an explanation for why conformity is relevant
to due care, once the issue of jury bias is taken into account. The remainder
of Chapter Seven explored the traditional economic approach to this issue.
In Landes and Posner’s analysis, courts should employ the rule of custom in
situations of actual or potential bargaining, and not otherwise. This hypothesis
failed, however, to predict the emergence of the evidentiary rule as dominant
in both bargaining and nonbargaining situations.
    In Chapter Eight, we saw that to account adequately for the complexity of
the relevant social phenomena, it is necessary to utilize the tripartite model of
the structure of social customs and norms. In particular, courts must implement
a more fine-grained rational actor account than is suggested by those game-
theoretic accounts, which focus on the Prisoner’s Dilemma or collective action
problem, because potentially dangerous social practices may come in the form
of coordination customs or epistemic customs. In this chapter, thirty-seven
distinct modalities of rational custom were first identified. Next, the tripartite
model of rational custom was used to explicate the role of custom in the leading
cases of Behymer and Hooper.
    According to the orthodox analysis, courts seeking to maximize welfare
should focus on the close-knitedness of the communities that produce the cus-
toms at issue. In this vein, we saw that sanction-driven customs served to further
confirm the Ellicksonian hypothesis. We also saw, however, that with both epis-
temic customs and coordination customs, conformers may maintain efficient
                         Regulating the Rule of Custom                         213

customs despite a lack of close-knitedness. This is a very important finding
because many pivotal social norms and customs that bond societies together
are not maintained within close-knit groups.25
    With epistemic customs, close-knittedness could actually be detrimental if
close-knit groups become isolated from gains in knowledge achieved in the
wider world. Rather than looking to the close-knittedness of the communi-
ties that produce epistemic customs in order to see if an effective sanctioning
regime is in place, courts instead need to appraise the epistemological features of
these customs in order to determine if conformers are incorporating informa-
tion in an optimal manner. With coordination customs, conformity is rationally
justified due to each person’s ability to achieve a coordination benefit. As partic-
ipants conform of their own accord and not because they have been incentivized
to do so, such customs may be maintained in groups that do not provide the
close-knitedness necessary for effective sanctioning.
    Coordination customs and epistemic customs may nevertheless be ineffi-
cient. Coordination customs may be inefficient because it is individually ra-
tional to conform to a suboptimal equilibrium after it is in existence. A court
may be unable to do anything to remedy this situation. The sort of case-by-case
incrementalism that is the cornerstone of common law legal process may then
simply not be suited to creating the sort of shock to a customary practice that will
sometimes be necessary to shift the equilibrium in order to move a community
to a more preferable practice. Similarly, epistemic customs may be maintained
for reasons that have nothing to do with close-knitedness. A close-knit group,
just as well as a group that is not close-knit, may wrongly think it is following
the best practice.
    We see, then, that welfare-maximizing courts will need to pay attention to
a number of features of customs, and not simply whether there was a bar-
gaining situation between the parties or a close-knit community surrounding
the parties,26 a la Landes and Posner (the elder) or Ellickson, McAdams, and
Posner (the younger), respectively. As indicated in the Figure 9.1, there are
thirty-seven rational modalities of social customs for courts to consider. Look-
ing closely at this complexity is important because it calls into doubt the basic
justification of the dominance accorded to the evidentiary rule by Holmes in
Behymer and Hand in The T. J. Hooper. After all, only eight of the thirty-seven
applications of the rule of custom call for the evidentiary rule. The per se rule
is preferable for nineteen of the situations; the no-priority rule, for ten of the
situations; and the presumption-shifting rule, for eight of the situations.
    The rational complexity of custom gives us good reason to suppose that
the story of the emergence of the evidentiary rule of custom as the dominant
modern rule is more complex than has been previously understood. With regard
to sanction-driven customs, a general explanation for the historical transition
from the per se rule to the evidentiary rule might be that the world is becoming
more anomic, less close-knit, and that this means these norms and customs, on
214                           negligent norms

average, are less likely to be efficient.27 This account will not work for the other
types of customs, however, because they do not have the same reliance on the
power of sanctions. Given the rational complexity of social norms, then, the
dominance of the evidentiary rule of custom remains in need of explanation.
    A defender of the evidentiary rule might contend that because of the structural
intricacies of various types of customs and how they may have an impact on
efficiency, it makes sense for the sake of simplicity to have one dominant rule
that works best in the overall run of cases. Given that all three types of custom
are sometimes efficient and sometimes inefficient, the evidentiary rule may
be preferable to the per se rule or the no-priority rule because it does not
provide a safe harbor for dangerous activity but nevertheless accords customary
social practices some degree of favorable treatment. Accordingly, it serves as
a reasonable intermediate position. Such a response is a thin rationalization,
however, for a legal rule that is clearly only roughly equipped to do the important
task to which it is assigned. Instead, the suggestion of this chapter is that the
way to create safe social norms and customs in a dangerous world is to first
understand their rational structure; then, courts should use this knowledge to
develop more fine-grained legal rules.
    The analysis of the last three chapters was built on the assumption of welfare-
maximizing courts. Courts are in a position to promote welfare when it comes
to their application of the rule of custom. We saw, however, that courts that take
this task seriously will need to work hard to discern the presence of all the factors
relevant to the welfare properties of each of the three types of custom, and then
after weighing the relative merit of each factor, choosing the appropriate version
of the rule of custom. It is then the task of judges to determine the appropriate
law to apply. Therefore, the choice of the appropriate version of the rule of
custom falls on the judge. The next two chapters examine an important impact
exerted not by judges, but by jurors, on the norms and customs that play a role
in tort law. We will see that the heterogeneous norms of jurors are in important
part constitutive of the de facto liability standard. This juror effect is not best
interpreted in terms of welfare maximization. Thus, the dominant Hand Test
paradigm for negligence is shown to be an inaccurate characterization of the
actual case law liability standard.
          Juror Norms and the Reasonable
                 Person Standard

   It is true that we think of that common-law duty as though it were imposed before
   the event, because it demands only “reasonable” care; but that does not specify
   the conduct required and creates a duty incapable of being known in advance,
   and it is ascertained and imposed only retroactively. Our excuse is that it is fair
   to exact conformity to such a standard because it should be the inherited portion
   of the actor; although never formulated before – being measured by a unique
   occasion – he will divine it by intuition. Nor is it derived alone from forecasting
   the probable course of events, though that enters into it. It involves a matching of
   human interests: it is “legislation” in parvo [in little].
                                                    Stronelli v. United States Gypsum

The focus in this chapter and the next is on the dominant two paradigms of
negligence and their relation to the substantive, real-world norms of jurors.1 The
two paradigms I have in mind are the economic account of tort and the corrective
justice account of tort. I will explore one important problem that is shared by
these accounts. This problem arises with respect to their treatment of the jury.
The dominant paradigms marginalize the jury. The effect is to badly skew the
account of how the negligence standard receives its content. In particular, the
dominant paradigms fail to explain the essential role that the norms of jurors
play in filling out the reasonable person standard. In so doing, these paradigms
run afoul of the sound jurisprudential tenet that the best explanations of key
legal concepts are those that provide a pragmatic explanation of the underlying
legal practices.2
   The power of either litigant to request a jury is both a practically universal
and a practically unique feature of America tort law.3 Despite the fact that most
cases settle, the prospect of a case going to trial is always in the background,
influencing litigation tactics, expected outcomes, and therefore settlement ne-
gotiations. In other words, litigants bargain in the shadow of the jury.4 Legal
practitioners understand the importance of the jury to the outcome of legal
216                          negligent norms

disputes, which is why litigants who are in a position to do so will often per-
form complex and expensive jury studies when developing legal strategies, and
expend significant additional resources to affect the composition of the jury.
   Given the jury’s important role in the actual practice of tort law, there is
a puzzle; why so little attention to the jury in the dominant conceptions? One
commentator has suggested that the jury’s role is so significant that legal scholars
in general tend to avoid discussion of it for that very reason. Mark Gergen writes
that “[t]he jury has a great deal of normative discretion in deciding what is
reasonably prudent. Most academic scholarship on negligence law passes over
this feature of the law, I think, because it makes theorizing about how negligence
cases ought to be decided seem academic.”5 A less cynical explanation may
simply be that scholars have sought to provide accounts of the structure of
tort that transcend the particularities of any one country’s tort regime and,
consequently, have avoided extended discussion of the tort jury because of its
uniquely important role in American law.6
   I will argue in favor of a third explanation, that the dominant paradigms
exhibit a bias that in another context Robert Ellickson has labeled “legal
centralism.”7 Ellickson defines legal centralists as those holding the view that
“the state functions as the sole creator of operative rules of entitlement among
individuals.”8 Legal centralists wrongly focus on top/down formal explanations
of the source of liability entitlements at the expense of bottom/up explanations
that would take account of the casual impacts of informal social norms (such
as those that might flow from the deliberations of juries).9
   The concept of legal centralism, explicitly or implicitly, has served as a ful-
crum in the emerging norms literature. In her leading early article, Lisa Bernstein
demonstrated the predominantly informal character of the regulation of the dia-
mond industry.10 In response to the bottom/up accounts set out by Ellickson and
Bernstein, Larry Lessig, Richard McAdams, and Cass Sunstein have separately
argued that government may have an important role to play as a norm manager.11
They cite examples such as the regulation of cigarette smoking in which gov-
ernment has played a significant role as a shaper of emerging social practices.
   In the context of entitlements created through the process of tort litigation,
the important question is whether a legal-centralist account as compared to
a legal-peripheralist account provides the best explanation of the emergence
of these entitlements, or perhaps instead whether a hybrid account combining
both bottom/up and top/down causal forces provides the best explanation.12 In
Section I, I develop a five-stage account of the jury’s role in a tort suit that
makes its way through trial. I will argue that the practice of tort law gives
the informal social norms of jurors an essential role in constituting the actual
substance of the negligence standard. As a causal matter, it is this de facto
standard, serving as an instantiation of the abstractly formulated formal standard
promulgated by the judge via the jury instructions, that determines the final
outcome in tort suits. Because the de facto standard plays an essential role in
                 Juror Norms & Reasonable Person Standard                    217

the outcome of tort litigation, the litigation entitlement is causally influenced
in its creation from below by the norms of jurors, as well as from above by
the jury instructions conveying the formal liability standard. In the following
discussion, the bottom/up component of this bidirectional causal process will
be referred to as the jury norm effect.
   Section II will provide an account of the particular substantive normative
forces that are typically unleashed by means of the jury norm effect. These
forces will be seen to include everyday analogues of strict liability and direct
causation, comparative negligence and redistribution. In their efforts to pro-
vide a unified normative account, the dominant paradigms fail to notice these
sui generis normative forces that fill out the substantive content of negligence
   The economic paradigm, which receives its most important expression in
the Restatement, will be considered first, and in greater depth.13 Discussion of
social norms is relegated to Section 1 of the Restatement, entitled “Custom,”
which deals with the rule of custom in determining negligence. The Restatement
follows The T. J. Hooper in holding that conformity to custom may count
as evidence of due care but is not dispositive with regard to due care.14 The
Restatement only countenances a role for social norms in the special situation
in which there is an instantiated custom in place, such that either the defendant
pleads conformity as a defense or the plaintiff seeks to demonstrate lack of
conformity as evidence of negligence. What is missing is any acknowledgment
of the pervasive role that social norms play in providing grist for the jury’s
concrete application of the reasonable person standard. This process may occur
not only in situations in which custom is explicitly introduced as evidence by
one of the parties but also in all situations in which lay juries deliberate.
   I will argue at length that the Restatement’s account is misguided, apparently
due to its legal centralism, which leads the restaters to assume, largely without
argument, the dominant causal efficacy of the Hand Test interpretation of the
reasonable person standard on the deliberations of juries, and hence on the
outcomes of negligence suits.
   Based on the analysis and empirical evidence examined in this chapter, I
will argue in Chapter Eleven that there is every reason to suppose that ju-
rors do not engage in Hand Test analysis but instead draw from their motley
array of everyday norms and customs when providing concrete substance to
the abstract reasonable person standard in order to come to a decision on the
issue of negligence. By marginalizing the role of the jury – treating jurors
as puppets on strings controlled by an overarching Hand Test rationale – the
Restatement, as standard bearer for the economic paradigm of negligence, fun-
damentally misconstrues the important role played by jurors in negligence
law. The discussion in Chapter Eleven will then turn to an innovative at-
tempt by Stephen Gilles to insulate the Restatement from the sort of criticism I
offer. Finally, Chapter Eleven will examine Jules Coleman’s corrective justice
218                                negligent norms

approach to see how it handles the role of the jury in determining negligence
   I will conclude that there is a need for a new negligence account that accords
the jury conceptual space commensurate with its role in the actual legal institu-
tion of tort law as practiced in America. The jury norm effect allows the norms
of ordinary people to exert a direct casual effect over formal, legal outcomes.
From the perspective of democratic theory, this is an antielitist, liberal feature
of American tort law, which distinguishes it from its counterparts abroad.15 Ac-
cording to one core tenet of pragmatist jurisprudence, important legal practices
should be analyzed in order to uncover the normative principles embodied in
the practices.16 In addition to the substantive norms of jurors that will be set out
in Section II, tort jury practices arguably embody important liberal principles of
political participation, value pluralism, and separation of powers. In their focus
on welfare or corrective justice, the dominant paradigms fail to countenance
any of these important values embodied in American tort law.

                       I. The Five Stages of Jury Activity
Jury activity in negligence suits can be conveniently broken down into five
stages. These stages are formal in the sense that jurors, regardless of the partic-
ular norms to which they conform, will go through them. Figure 10.1 represents
these stages in chronological order, with the exception of the first box, which

                                                        Stage 1.
                                                        Voir Dire

                                                   Community Norms

                                                   Jury Instructions/
                Moral Suasion                      Liability Standard

Facts               Stage 2.
              Trial Proceedings                    Stage 3. Conclusion of

            Normative Processing

                 Stage 4. Jury                      Stage 5. Outcome
                 Deliberation                                                Liability/
                                                     Determination          No Liability

            Normative Processing                      De Facto Standard

                          Figure 10.1 Stages of Jury Activity
                 Juror Norms & Reasonable Person Standard                     219

represents the role of the jury as characterized in many leading theories of tort.
Those theories typically do not explicitly claim that the jury plays no role.
Rather, they say little about this role, thereby effectively treating the jury as a
black box.17 The specific content of the deliberations of particular juries will
likely remain a mystery, and for good reason; nevertheless, there is information
available about the role played by juries.

                               Stage 1: Voir Dire
The second box in Figure 10.1 represents Stage One, Voir Dire. In this stage,
a group of (usually twelve) jurors is chosen by lawyers for the parties to par-
ticipate in the trial. Jurors do not come to their task as blank slates, but rather
as individuals, each of whom will have a set of social norms that she accepts
and prescribes, or at any rate conforms to, and expects others to conform to
as well.18 These preexisting normative commitments are likely to be drawn
upon by jurors in their deliberations. Thus, these commitments might cause
one prospective jury to be more attractive than another to the lawyers in the
case with the power to choose or exclude jurors.
    Different jurisdictions have placed a variety of stipulations on those who
may serve on a jury. Jurors have been required to be of “sound judgment” and
“good moral character.”19 Jurors have been required to be male or white or
property holders.20 Jurors are required to be residents of the jurisdiction.21 One
of the main justifications that has been given for the civil jury is its ability to
infuse “community values” and norms into the legal process.22 By restricting
jury service to whites, or property holders, clearly some values would be more
likely to find expression in outcomes than other values.
    Beginning with Stage One, each party’s legal counsel will seek to shape the
narrative that she will create in order to put the facts into a coherent norma-
tive framework. Throughout the trial, the lawyers will seek to push the jury’s
normative buttons. Their ability to do so will depend on the normative starting
points of each of the jurors.

                         Stage Two: Trial Proceedings
In the second stage, the jury observes the trial proceedings and thereby becomes
exposed to the facts of the case. In the third box in Figure 10.1, the arrow
representing the introduction of facts is drawn from the left side because the
input of facts does not seem readily characterized as either a formal, legal
influence from above, or an informal normative influence from below.
    Advocates for each party will continue to present a narrative throughout the
conduct of the trial. As new facts are presented, each advocate will seek to
weave the new fact into the each lawyer’s competing narrative. The lawyer for
the plaintiff will seek to establish that the facts indicate the defendant acted
220                           negligent norms

unreasonably by the lights of reigning community norms, and the lawyer for
the defendant will seek to establish that the defendant’s behavior conformed to
accepted norms of reasonable behavior.23
   The lawyerly component of influence is best represented as coming from
above because the advocates are officers of the court. But this influence will
be effective, or not, depending on the moral mental states and dispositions of
the jurors, who will perform normative processing of all the information they
receive, according to the thick set of norms to which they subscribe.24 Thus,
the element of normative processing is correctly represented as coming from

              Stage Three: Conclusion of Courtroom Proceedings
After the conclusion of courtroom testimony, the jury receives instructions and
the liability standard from the judge. Through these communications, law as
a formal institution can be expected to have a causal impact on the normative
deliberations of the jury. Both the liability standard and the instructions are
intended to guide and constrain the deliberations of the jurors.
    For example, juries sometimes receive an instruction telling them that they
should not take account of the wealth of the parties. It is of course an open
empirical question how effective this instruction will be in actually affecting
the norm of redistribution that may happen to reside in the jury. But assuming
that the instruction is at least somewhat effective, this will serve as a partial
bound on the ambit of the normative processing that is likely to ensue.
    In negligence suits, the injury instruction regarding the liability standard
is typically stated in terms of the reasonable person test.25 There is typically
little further instruction telling the jury how to interpret this test or determine
the meaning of the crucial concept of reasonableness.26 The result is that the
normative processing engaged in by the jury during its Stage Four deliberations
will not be constrained by any specific legal test for the application of the
concept of reasonableness.

                          Stage Four: Jury Deliberation
The jury has a fact-finding function. The jurors are meant to discuss their views
and seek to persuade one another so as to reach a consensus.27 The jury is given
relatively little instruction on how to deliberate; nevertheless, it is expected to
deliberate. And if these deliberations result in a hung jury, the judge will often
tell the jury to deliberate harder. Deliberation is a process value. What matters is
that deliberation of a sufficient quality occurs, not that any particular verdict is
reached. In the absence of a specific legal test for negligence, it is predictable that
jurors, when attempting to engage in good faith deliberations, will fall back on
their ordinary moral intuitions regarding the demand of reasonableness. These
                 Juror Norms & Reasonable Person Standard                      221

intuitions will in turn be importantly influenced by the set of norms conformed
to by the group of jurors empanelled.
    For example, take the basic facts of the venerable old case, Vaughn v.
Menlove, and suppose the following two scenarios.28 In scenario 1, there is a
norm in the region to build hayricks with apertures. In scenario 2, there is a norm
in the region to build hayricks without apertures. In scenario 1, it is completely
plausible to suppose that the jury might decide very quickly that Menlove was
reasonable in building his hayrick with an aperture; however, in scenario 2, it
is completely plausible to suppose that the jury might decide very quickly that
Menlove was not reasonable in building his hayrick with an aperture. Thus,
there is a de facto standard that results from the jury’s application of the formal
standard through the lens of its normative vision. The evidence for the exis-
tence of a de facto standard is that different jurors with different sets of norms
can be expected to produce different outcomes, as a result of their normative
processing of the same facts and the same formal standard. A neutral, objective
application of the standard to the facts simply does not exist. Any application
will be the application of some particular set of jurors.
    Given the crucial role played by social norms in shaping their intuitions,
the jury’s determination regarding liability is not accurately characterized as
“fact finding” in the usual sense. It is frequently noted that reasonableness is
not a fact in the way that the question of whether, for instance, one of the
parties was wearing her seatbelt is a fact. Frances Bohlen describes liability as
a mixed question of law and fact.29 Other commentators have characterized jury
deliberation as a process whereby the jury decides an “ultimate question” or
makes little bits of law. Catherine Wells writes, “[I]n negligence cases, the line
between the judge’s sphere and the jury’s does not separate an area of normative,
law-like matters from one that is purely factual. It is a misconception to say
that the jury simply applies the law. Its role is to decide the ultimate question of
liability in the individual case before it.”30 Similarly, Learned Hand says that
the jury in effect makes little laws, legislation in parvo.31
    These explanations may create as much mystery as they dispel, however,
as talk of ultimate questions or legislation writ small is no less opaque than
is the notion that “reasonable” is a factual predicate that may be truthfully
asserted regarding a potential tortfeasor’s actions. It is more straightforward
to simply acknowledge that some facts are more complex than others. In the
present context, this complexity is due to the inherent normative dimension of
the concept of “reasonable” behavior.32
    Importantly, despite this complexity, jurors are generally able to perform
their appointed task. While tort theorists may spend infinite keystrokes fight-
ing over the preferable conception of reasonable behavior, nothing stops an
ordinary person, that is, a juror, from making a quick decision as to the rea-
sonableness of the actions of other ordinary people (victims and injurers). The
sure evidence for this is that juries reach verdicts all the time. Some juries reach
222                            negligent norms

their decisions in a very short period of time.33 Hung juries are the exception to
the rule.34

                       Stage Five: Outcome Determination
In Stage Five, the final stage, the jury produces a general verdict. The jury need
not provide an explanation for how it reached its result, or seek to justify or
provide a rationale for the result.35 Does this mean that the jury is free to reach its
verdict in any manner whatsoever? No, even though the jury is not constrained
in the substantive outcome that it may produce, it is constrained in the way by
which it is supposed to reach the outcome. Specifically, the outcome must be
the result of deliberation. The secrecy of jury deliberations means that outsiders
have no way of knowing that the outcome was produced through deliberation,
as compared to say flipping a coin, but this does not change the fact that due
process demands that the outcome be produced in a deliberative manner.

                           II. Substantive Jury Norms
The account developed in Section I dissected tort litigation into five stages in
order to provide a more nuanced understanding of the role of juror norms. Legal
centralists write as if all entitlements are created in the shadow of the law. The
examination of the five stages told a different story, as informal social norms
were seen to play an essential role in all the stages except Stage Three. Overall,
norms play an essential role in determining the outcome of the negligence
inquiry and hence in determining whether plaintiff is entitled to a recovery.
   As noted earlier, the five-stage account of the role of the jury is formal in
the sense that each of the five stages may be passed through regardless of the
particular substantive norms adhered to by any given set of jurors. The following
discussion will consider a few of the more important attempts to uncover some
of the more important substantive normative elements that appear to exert a
casual influence on jurors during the various stages of their activity. Three sorts
of normative influence will be considered: strict liability norms, comparative
negligence norms, and redistributive norms. This account is preliminary and is
meant to be suggestive of the complexity of juror normative processing. Much
empirical study needs to be done before we can speak more definitively on the
contours of normative processing by American jurors.

                           A. Strict Liability Jury Norms
As the following discussion demonstrates, considerations of strict liability and
directness of injury appear to play a role in jury interpretations of the reasonable
person standard. The orthodoxy is of course that the reasonable person standard
is not a strict liability standard. Strict liability is liability without fault, and the
                  Juror Norms & Reasonable Person Standard                         223

reasonable person standard requires fault.36 As long as the injurer was acting
reasonably, taking due care, the reasonable person will not be liable for injuries.
In Wagon Mound II, the Privy Council famously observed that the fault standard
is a morally superior standard, claiming it to be “immoral and unjust” to hold an
injurer liable in a situation in which the injury was not reasonably foreseeable.37
    There is evidence, however, that everyday people who comprise juries may
see the issue differently.38 There is evidence that strict liability intuitions have
long played a role in negligence, as indicated by the following remarks from

The general utility of such conduct in not likely to receive much consideration from
a jury who sees before them a plaintiff whose vital interests have been harmed by a
particular instance of it. A court might emphasize to the jury ad nauseam the social
value of the act, but the jury would only see one man injured by another. And only
the most confirmed optimist would dare to hope that they would judge the defendant’s
conduct by what the ideal creature, the “reasonable man” would do. . . . The concept
universal among all primitive men, that an injury should be paid for by him who causes
it, irrespective of the moral or social quality of his conduct, while it has disappeared
from legal thought, still dominates the opinion of the sort of men who form the average

Bohlen’s remarks indicate that in his experience, the actual outcome of jury
decisions applying the reasonable person standard will reflect the tendencies
of juries to find liability based on whether the defendant “caused” the injury
rather than on some other criteria such as whether the defendant was acting to
maximize “social value” at the time he caused the injury. In other words, actual
court decisions sometimes reflect an implicit strict liability standard rather than
a negligence standard.
   There is reason to believe that juries continue to apply a strict liability stan-
dard. One particularly salient factor appears to be the directness of the injury.
Juries appear more likely to find liability when the causal nexus between defen-
dant’s injurious act and plaintiff’s injury is more rather than less direct. The most
famous directness case is Polemis.40 In this case, the court held that because of
the directness of the injury, there could be a finding of liability, even without
consideration of whether there was reasonable foreseeability on the part of the
defendant.41 This case is often contrasted with Wagon Mound II, in which, as
noted earlier, the Privy Council rejected the directness test as “immoral and
unjust.”42 The elite Privy Council exhibits a value judgment that evidently is at
odds with ordinary morality, however, as across most jurisdictions, directness
and reasonable foreseeability have each commanded respect from jurors.43
   The “sort of men who form the average jury,” to use Bohlen’s elitist remark,
are presumably still the same sort of men, ordinary people, that is. It is inac-
curate then to characterize jury determinations of liability that reflect a strict
liability norm as “legislation writ large.” Rather, these are simply instances of
224                          negligent norms

normative processing in which juries plug their more concrete norms of
reasonable behavior into the abstract reasonable person standard.

                    B. Comparative Negligence Jury Norms
There is evidence that juries have a normative predilection in favor of com-
parative negligence. It is not clear whether this is a matter of jury nullification
or simple jury normative processing. Wells describes the facts of Li v. Yellow
Cab Co. and describes the sort of deliberation everyday people such as she and
the jury might go through.44 In Li, the plaintiff was injured when struck by an
oncoming motorist as the plaintiff attempted to make a left-hand turn in her
automobile. Prior to this case, California had applied the rule of contributory
negligence. Wells argues persuasively, however, that regardless of the formal
rule in place, fact finders will be inclined to take account of the degrees of fault
of both parties.45 In Li, the California Supreme Court replaced the contributory
negligence rule with the comparative negligence rule such that the defendant
was held responsible for his portion of the fault, despite the fact that plaintiff
was also at fault in making the left-hand turn. Wells notes: “Only the lawyers
among us will think that this responsibility should depend on whether the law of
California looks to contributory or comparative negligence.”46 In other words
from an ordinary moral point of view, people will do the functional equivalent
of a comparative negligence approach, as they will tend to reach a result that
apportions partial fault or responsibility to each party and lets the outcome split
the difference as it were. With comparative negligence, the informal social norm
played a significant causal role in the emergence of the formal legal rule. The
Li court acknowledged its decision to switch to comparative fault reflected its
perception that this is what juries are inclined to do anyway.47

                         C. Redistributive Jury Norms
Commentators have long claimed that juries are predisposed toward
redistribution.48 Empirical research suggests that the story of normative im-
pulses toward redistribution is more complex than one might at first suppose.49
Valerie Hans argues, for example, that jurors hold corporations to higher
standards.50 Thus, it may not be a redistributive norm but a norm regarding
elevated duties of firms that may explain the observed outcomes.
   Other observers have noted the influence of redistributive norms.51 Leon
Green, for instance, argues that courts will be inclined to “place the loss where
it will be felt the least and can best be borne.”52 Wells argues that juries tend
to attempt to make negligence decisions in order to bring about an outcome
that is “fair,” “all things considered,” which may involve taking account of
the “defendant’s ability to absorb or spread costs,” which is fairly seen as a
redistributive impulse.53
                 Juror Norms & Reasonable Person Standard                     225

                    D. Jurors as Providers of Total Justice
The preceding examination indicates that there are a plurality of distinguishable
normative influences that may have a casual impact on the de facto standard.
Based on empirical work on the tort jury, Neil Feigenson finds that jurors do
“total justice.”54 What is meant by total justice is that jurors decide liability
not solely on either a welfare-maximizing criterion or on a corrective justice
criterion, but rather, they take account of a plurality of factors. Some of these
factors may be dubious from the perspective of prevailing critical moral frame-
works, such as the wealth of the defendant or the likelihood that the defendant
is insured. Nevertheless, these factors may play a role in ordinary morality and
this is what matters when presenting the best positive account of juror behavior.

In Section I, I developed a five-stage account of the jury’s role in a tort suit
that makes it to trial. I argued that the picture of tort law gave the informal
social norms of jurors an essential role in constituting the actual substance of
the negligence standard. Causally speaking, it is this de facto standard that
determines the final outcome in tort suits.
    Because the de facto liability standard plays an essential role in producing
outcomes, the litigation entitlement is causally influenced in its creation from
below by juror norms and from above by the jury instructions conveying the
formal liability standard. In the foregoing discussion, the bottom/up component
of this bidirectional causal process has been referred to as the jury norm effect.
    Section II provided an account of some of the substantive normative forces
that may be unleashed through the jury norm effect, such as strict liability
and direct causation, comparative negligence, and redistribution. In the next
chapter, I will argue that, in their efforts to provide a unified normative account,
the dominant paradigms fail to notice these sui generis normative forces that
fill out the substantive content of negligence determinations.
      Rejection of the Dominant Paradigm
                 of Negligence

   Cases come to the courts through formal pleadings cut to some pattern or patterns
   of legal theory. Evidential data are offered to support these and the opposing
   theories. There is no suggestion that the tenor of the Restatement is designed
   for these purposes. After the evidence is heard, the theories insisted upon by the
   parties through their lawyers are translated to the jury by instructions in terms of
   formulas. Certainly the black letter statements are not intended to supplant the
   formulas already worked out and utilized by the courts in tort cases. These are too
   ponderous and elaborate for such a purpose. Assuming that a judge would know
   which ones to give, no jury would comprehend them.1
                                                                          Leon Green

In this chapter, I will argue at length that a failure to properly characterize
the jury norm effect leads the Third Restatement account of negligence astray.
Apparently due to the bias of legal centralism, the Third Restatement assumes,
without little by way of argument or evidence, the dominant causal efficacy
of the Hand Test interpretation of the reasonable person standard on the
deliberations of juries, and hence on the outcomes in negligence suits.
   Based on the empirical support and analysis presented in Chapter Ten, I will
argue to the contrary that there is good reason to suppose that juries do not
engage in Hand Test normative processing but instead draw from their diverse
array of everyday norms and customs when providing concrete substance to the
abstract reasonable person standard in order to come to a decision on the issue
of negligence. By marginalizing the role of the jury, the Third Restatement,
as the embodiment of the dominant paradigm, misconstrues the important role
played by jurors and their norms in negligence law. In this important respect,
the Restatement fails to restate the law.
   Section I will critically examine the approach followed in the Third
Restatement. Section II will consider an innovative attempt by Stephen Gilles
to inoculate the Third Restatement from the sort of criticism developed in
                        Rejection of Negligence Paradigm                             227

Section I, by arguing that the social values of jurors will reflect a “Hand Norm.”
I will argue that both the Third Restatement and Gilles’s attempt to save it are
importantly flawed in their understanding of the role played by juror norms.

      I. The Hand Test Interpretation of Juror Normative Processing
Negligence is the breach of a legally recognized duty.2 The Restatement fails
to state duty as an overt element.3 It would thus seem incapable of defining
negligence as the breach of a duty.4 The Restatement ducks this thorny issue
by proceeding directly to a discussion of negligence or fault.5
    The Restatement sets forth a “risk-benefit test” for negligence which it
explicates as follows: “the ‘risk’ is the overall magnitude of the risk created by
the actor’s conduct and the ‘benefit’ is the advantages that the actor or others gain
if the actor refrains from risk prevention measures.”6 The Restatement notes
that in a “cost-benefit test,” the “‘cost’ signifies the cost of precautions and the
‘benefit’ signifies the reduction in risk those precautions would achieve.”7 The
Restatement concludes, “[M]ore simply, this can be referred to as supporting a
‘balancing approach’ to negligence.”8 The Restatement explicates the balancing
approach in the following terms:

The balancing approach rests on and expresses a simple idea. Conduct is negligent if
its disadvantages exceed its advantages, while conduct is not negligent if its advantages
exceed its disadvantages. The disadvantage in question is the “magnitude of risk” that
the conduct occasions: the phrase “magnitude of risk” includes both the foreseeable
likelihood of harm and the foreseeable severity of harm, should the incident ensue. The
“advantages” of the conduct relate to the burdens of risk prevention that are avoided
when the actor while engaging in conduct declines to incorporate some precaution. The
actor’s conduct is hence negligent if the magnitude of the risk exceeds the burden of risk

    In this passage, the Restatement evinces an explicitly utilitarian or economic
conception of balancing, as “disadvantages” are weighed against “advantages.”
In particular, this is a quantitative conception, one in which these values are to
be measured on a single scale by comparing their respective “magnitudes” in
order to determine whether the advantages “exceed” the disadvantages. This
is a Hand Test formulation that emphasizes the “burdens of risk prevention,”
rather than the overall utility of the defendant’s act.10 The Hand Test focuses on
the burden that must be expended in order for a tort defendant to avoid liability.
If B < P × L, then one will be liable if one’s action results in injury to another.11
The Restatement gives the “reasonable care” standard a gloss that implicitly
reflects the Hand Test formulation.12
    The Restatement claims that the best way to understand the case law is for
courts to attempt to implement the balancing approach described earlier.13 The
Restatement explicitly equates its suggested balancing approach with the Hand
228                           negligent norms

Test approach,14 and cites a long string of cases that purportedly utilize the
balancing or Hand approach.15
    The Restatement notes that a number of federal appellate courts have
explicitly endorsed the Hand formula.16 This is loosely presented as evidence
for the claim that the Hand Test has really played a pervasive role in the case
law, despite the failure of trial courts to mention explicitly cost-benefit analysis
in jury instructions.
    This argument is flawed. From the mere fact that some federal appellate
courts have been influenced by the normative account of breach contained in
the Hand Test, there is no reason to conclude that trial courts have been similarly
influenced. If explicit mention of the Hand Formula is taken as evidence of the
influence of this formula in federal appellate courts, then by parity of reasoning,
one would more naturally conclude that the failure of the formula to receive
explicit mention by trial courts is evidence of its lack of influence there.17
Certainly, in the absence of explicit discussion of the Hand Test by trial courts,
the initial presumption, albeit a rebuttable one, should be that it has not played
a role.18
    The fact that negligence is a fact question determined by jurors is additional
reason to think that trial court decisions do not result from cost-benefit analysis.
Under settled American practice, juries are under no obligation to explain or
justify their decisions.19 The jury simply applies the “reasonable person stan-
dard” to the facts as it finds them and issues a general verdict.20 Contemporary
jury instructions typically tell the jury to apply the reasonable person standard,
without explaining or defining this standard.21 In particular, juries do not receive
instructions to apply the Hand Test, the risk-utility test, or the risk-benefit test.
This is straightforward and powerful evidence for the supposition that juries do
not apply any of these tests.
    In cases in which defense attorneys might seek Hand Test instructions, they
nevertheless typically choose not to. Gary Schwartz argues that this is because
they fear jury nullification.22 In other words, seasoned trial lawyers intuit that
typical jurors would find a cost-benefit mode of reasoning morally unattractive.
If this claim turns out to be true, it is additional evidence that juries do not think
in Hand Test terms in the usual case.23 Moreover, even if they were morally
inclined to do so, typical juries may be practically incapable of such reasoning.24
    The Restatement notes that “while the concept of ‘probability’ is more tech-
nically precise, it will utilize the concept of ‘likelihood,’ instead, as the word
is in common usage with a clear meaning.”25 In this passage, the Restatement
seeks to suggest that the cost-benefit test is capable of being performed by or-
dinary people. The Restatement presumably means to suggest by this appeal to
ordinary language that the negligence standard is a test capable of application
by ordinary persons, such as jurors. This only establishes the hypothetical that
if juries were to apply the Hand test, the use of “likelihood” as compared to
“probability” would make the test more easily applicable by ordinary people.
                       Rejection of Negligence Paradigm                         229

Even if this is correct, the point does nothing to establish the proposition that
jurors who are not told to apply the Hand Test, either in terms of probability or
likelihood, will somehow be more inclined to apply the test.
    In fact, one can more readily utilize an ordinary language argument against
the legal centralism of the Restatement.26 The ordinary language phrase “rea-
sonable person” does not in any way suggest a utilitarian or economic approach
of the sort conventionally read into the Hand Test. According to Webster’s,
“reasonable” simply means “sensible,” not “extreme,” “immoderate,” or
“excessive.”27 Based on the mere fact of their hearing jury instructions, then,
there is simply no reason to think that juries, composed as they are of every-
day people, would somehow insert a technical mode of reasoning such as cost-
benefit analysis into their untutored deliberations regarding the behavior of
reasonable persons.
    It will be the atypical juror who will have had more than a passing ac-
quaintance with cost-benefit analysis specifically, or utilitarian reasoning more
generally.28 Even when jurors are exposed to utilitarian thinking, however,
this exposure probably will not influence their actual behavior. There are two
separate reasons, each grounded in a competing conception of human nature,
for thinking that welfare-maximizing actions will not be forthcoming from
typical jurors.
    To the extent that jurors are narrowly self-interested rational actors, mere
exposure to utilitarianism would not cause them to act according to the dictates
of utilitarianism. Rather they would support the outcome that best served
their own interests. It is arguably more plausible to assume that people are
predominantly, rather than narrowly, self-interested rational actors.29 In other
words, people are, at least to some extent, morally motivated. The jury system
appears ideally designed to take advantage of jurors’ moral propensities
because jurors typically have little to gain one way or another from the
outcome of a trial. Thus, their propensities toward self-interest will be unlikely
to interfere with their admittedly limited propensities toward moral behavior.30
    The implication of this finding is not, however, that jurors will therefore act as
utilitarians. It is more plausible to suppose that under these conditions, jurors
will simply make decisions based on their ordinary moral understanding of
the world. In other words, the determination of liability will depend largely on
whether the behavior in question conformed to community norms.31 Ordinary
morality bears little resemblance to utilitarianism.32 Therefore, we should not
expect that morally motivated jurors applying the reasonable person standard
in light of their norms would act in a utilitarian manner.33
    This section rejected a number of arguments for thinking real-world juries
apply the Hand Test version of the reasonable person standard. The fact that
some federal circuit courts explicitly discuss cost-benefit analysis is no reason
to think that juries implicitly appeal to this analysis. The opposite would
appear more likely, as the fact that there is no explicit mention is reason to
230                          negligent norms

think there is not an implicit appeal. Furthermore, even in products liability
cases when lawyers might seek Hand Test jury instructions, they typically
do not. Most important in understanding juror behavior is the fact that juries
do not receive jury instructions regarding cost-benefit analysis. Nor do jurors
typically learn about cost-benefit analysis elsewhere so as to be able to appeal
to it intuitively in their deliberations. Finally, even if jurors happen to learn
about cost-benefit analysis, there is no reason to think that they will be inclined
to promote it. Instead, it is much more likely that they would either act in a
narrowly self-interested manner or conform to extant social norms, neither of
which is likely to coincide with global welfare maximization.

              II. A “Social Values” Approach to Juror Norms
In an important recent article, Stephen Gilles endorses the legitimacy of com-
munity values as a source of objective legal standards.34 Gilles argues that the
negligence test is best understood as incorporating a “Hand Norm.” According
to Gilles, “[t]he Hand Norm tells us that it is negligent to omit a precaution
if the reduction in expected accident costs would have been greater than the
costs of the precaution.”35 The Hand Test, then, is not merely an arid academic
formulation but also one important component of the set of norms that char-
acterizes the community morality of jurors. If Gilles is right, the task of the
economist is potentially rendered more tractable. The Hand Test is no longer
merely a functionalist description of what juries do. Instead, it attempts to give
center stage to cost-benefit balancing by explaining that such balancing is itself
a moral norm held by jurors.
    Gilles refers to the community norms that juries consult as the “common
coin of ‘social value.’ ”36 He further explains that “human beings have various
interests, and those interests have more or less social value.”37 Thus, for Gilles,
talk of community morality and norms shifts to talk of values on a uniform
scale in which interests have “more or less social value,” and all values may be
reduced to a “common coin.”38
    As Gilles notes, his approach derives from that of the First Restatement.
The First Restatement conceived of courts as being influenced by the “social
value[s]” of the surrounding community in making determinations of the stan-
dard of care required of the reasonable person under the particular circum-
stances of the case at bar.39 In contrast, the Restatement merely says that courts
should determine reasonableness “under all the circumstances.”40 The First
Restatement approach thus gives the reasonable person standard a more deter-
minate content. The content comes from the thick moral norms of the actual
communities out of which the pool of jurors are drawn. Jurors, being ordinary
members of the community untrained in utilitarian reasoning, have nothing
else to appeal to but their social sense of how ordinary moral members of the
community would have acted in parallel circumstances.
                         Rejection of Negligence Paradigm                              231

   In an influential article written during the era that produced the First
Restatement, Warren Seavey sought to legitimate community norms as an
objective source of legal decisions.41 Gilles cites to the following passage
from Seavey as evidence that the Hand Test is incorporated into the negligence
standard via community values or social values. Seavey writes:

In this computation there are involved two distinct kinds of problems. The first is purely
mathematical, namely the ascertainment of the degree of likelihood that certain events
will or will not occur. As to this, the result would be the same under any system of law;
it is achieved by purely intellectual processes. The complete answer can be obtained,
however, only by solving the other type of problem, that is the comparative values of
the conflicting interests of the actor and the one whose interests are threatened. This
evaluation calls for the so-called moral qualities. To the extent that the solution of these
problems involves standardized elements, or, phrasing it differently, to the extent that
the actor’s conduct is determined with reference to the community valuations, we may
say that an objective test applies.42

In this passage, Seavey first notes that the process of discounting for the un-
certainty of particular injuries is a process that will not vary with particular
communities. Speaking anachronistically, this is the “P,” or probability, com-
ponent in the Hand Formula. Regarding the values to be imputed to the benefit
received by the tortfeasor and the loss inflicted on the victim, “community val-
uations” are to serve as the measure. Although these valuations may vary from
community to community, the fact that they will be standardized within partic-
ular communities nevertheless allows for the conclusion that “an objective test
   Returning to Gilles’s argument, the following consideration weighs heavily
against the Hand Norm argument. Recasting balancing as a moral norm does
not establish the primacy of a welfarist conception of fault or breach. This is
because there is no logical connection between factor balancing, generically un-
derstood, and the cost-benefit approach. Gilles takes too literally the metaphors
of “balancing” and “weighing” of utility. A set of scales can balance weights at
either end, but ordinary usage also permits a more general sense of the words
“weigh” and “balance” to mean simply that rational actors may take account of
numerous factors in their practical reasoning with regard to a particular issue.
Practical reason itself typically involves taking account of numerous factors.
There is nothing intrinsically utilitarian or consequentialist in practical rea-
soning. A deontologist can engage in practical reasoning by balancing various
considerations, every bit as much as a utilitarian can.43
   For example, a deontologist may balance freedom of action against
security.44 Doing so in no way transforms the deontologist into a utilitarian.
When the U.S. Supreme Court performs its multipart balancing tests in decid-
ing cases involving basic constitutional rights, it would be implausible to suggest
that the Court has first reduced all the competing rights-based considerations to
232                           negligent norms

some “common coin” of consequentialist value. Likewise, there is no reason to
think that when the ordinary juror weighs or balances various community-based
moral factors, that she is therefore somehow transformed into a utilitarian.
    Hand himself was not deluded into thinking that the Hand Test implied
weighing in anything more than a metaphorical sense. Nor did Hand have any
illusions that values could be quantified. He wrote: “[O]f these factors care is
the only one ever susceptible of quantitative estimate, and often that is not. The
injuries are always a variable within limits, which do not admit of even approxi-
mate ascertainment; and, although probability might theoretically be estimated,
if any statistics were available, they never are; and besides, probability varies
with the severity of the injuries.”45 This can be seen by imagining a community
of deontologists.
    Gilles’s argument appears to provide support for the utilitarian thesis, due to
its conceptualization of the social values at stake as “Hand Factors.”46 Stripped
of rhetoric, however, the so-called Hand factors are simply the core factors of
any account of negligence. These factors will be present under any theoretical
conception of the reasoning processes engaged in by jurors. For example, the
first of Gilles’s Hand factors concerns the utility of the defendant’s action. Any
theoretical approach to torts must take account of the defendant’s actions. The
Kantian will hold this action to the test of the categorical imperative.47 The
corrective justice theorist will consider the sort of wrongfulness contained in
the action.48 In a general sense of the term, each of these can be seen as “factors”
looked into by courts.
    The third Hand factor is based on the fact that, ex ante, the injury to the
plaintiff was not certain to occur. Gilles and the Restatement describe this
factor in terms of “risk,” “probability,” or “likelihood,” of the injury occur-
ring. Once again, there is nothing that is particularly utilitarian about factor-
ing in risks, probabilities or likelihoods. Because outcomes that are probable,
rather than certain, are an unavoidable part of life, any theory of practical
reason, and any normative theory of liability in negligence, must account for
    With regard to all three of the so-called Hand factors, then, there is nothing
inherently utilitarian about any one of them. Any normative approach will
necessarily involve the balancing of these considerations.49 What is distinctively
welfarist is putting all such considerations on one scale of value. But as we have
seen, there is no evidence that this is what juries do, and there is, in fact, good
reason to think this is not what they do.
    At times, the Restatement echoes Gilles’s approach in emphasizing the mul-
tiple considerations that enter into the assessment of fault, as, for example, when
it discusses the idea of “ethical particularism” in commentary to Section 5.50
Reviewing the famous Holmes/Cardozo debate regarding the appropriateness
of bright-line negligence rules, the Restatement endorses Cardozo’s position
and describes it as an approach favoring “ethical particularism.”
                      Rejection of Negligence Paradigm                        233

    Despite the invocation of Cardozo, the Restatement understands ethical par-
ticularism in utilitarian terms. Its claim is simply that each fact pattern giving
rise to a negligence claim in tort litigation presents particular factual details
that distinguish it from other similar factual situations. Thus, rather than having
a bright-line rule to deal with similar situations, courts allow the negligence
question to go to the jury, which can then perform more fine-grained Hand
factor analysis based on all the details of the case.51 The Restatement’s error
is to reduce all the ethical particularities of specific fact patterns to their con-
sequential value, that is, how they are to be quantified in terms of cost-benefit
analysis. In fact, however, the argument from ethical particularism to which the
Restatement cites has nothing to do with making a full count of utilities. Rather,
the ethical particularities thought to be implicit in specific situations cannot be
reduced to any particular critical normative framework, be it consequentialist
or nonconsequentialist.52 As Section I indicated, the moral judgments rendered
by juries are often based on a variety of moral factors such as directness of the
injury, which cannot be reduced to consequentialist factors to be measured by
their relative magnitudes.
    The Restatement’s misconception regarding the prospect of quantifying
all factors relevant to negligence has an important practical implication. The
Restatement notes that directed verdicts for negligence, per se, should increase
as more exact measurement of utilities becomes feasible.53 In other words, the
role of the jury in tort law will diminish over time, as utilitarian science dis-
places lay juror guesses regarding the exact utilities to be attached to the Hand
factors. Given the important and unique role that juries have played in American
tort law, this aspect of the Restatement deserves greater attention from future
    The discussion in this section demonstrated that the attempt to assimilate
factor balancing and cost-benefit analysis is misguided. Section I demonstrated
that the Restatement’s attempt to read cost-benefit analysis into the reason-
able person standard was implausible. Combined, then, earlier discussion has
shown that the Restatement’s cost-benefit conception of fault understates the
role of nonutilitarian negligence norms in filling out the actual substance of the
reasonable person standard.

                        III. Corrective Justice Norms
The previous section examined the leading instantiation of the economic
approach to tort in terms of its ability to account adequately for the juror
norm effect in determinations of negligence. This section does the same for
the corrective justice approach. I will focus my attention on the metaphysically
and epistemologically grounded new defense of corrective justice vis-` -vis the
economic approach contained in Jules Coleman’s recent book, The Practice of
Principle.54 In the short space that can be devoted to the complex topic here,
234                            negligent norms

only an initial exploration will be possible. This will still be of value, however,
if it indicates that Coleman’s account of the role of juror norms is inadequate
and, further, that it is plausible to believe that his account may be typical of
corrective justice approaches in this regard.
    Coleman contrasts the economist’s functionalist explanation of tort with
his pragmatist explanation.55 Coleman seeks to develop a set of commitments
about the semantic contents of theories and about the criteria of theory justi-
fication. A pragmatist account should answer the question of what is to count
as an explanation of a particular area of the law, such as tort law. Coleman
presents the corrective justice account as an instance of a pragmatic concep-
tual explanation.56 According to Coleman, satisfactory “explanations of [legal]
practices typically take the form of analyses of the concepts that figure promi-
nently in those practices.”57 Coleman begins the analysis with middle-level
concepts. He asks “what principles, if any, are embodied in the legal practices
we are presently engaged in?”58 Coleman’s goal is to identify the “normatively
significant elements of the practice and to explain them as embodiments of
principle,”59 that is, to satisfy the titular quest of uncovering the practice of
    According to Coleman’s pragmatic methodology, it is crucial to look at the
practical inferences that are drawn from the central concepts of a practice. Of
particular importance for tort law is the inference of liability. Coleman argues
that the economic account is inadequate owing to its faulty account of the
inference of liability. Most important, the economic account fails to explain the
“bilateral structure” of tort law, that is, the existence and significance of tort suits
in which a plaintiff demands redress of a defendant on the basis of having been
injured by the defendant. Coleman reinforces the argument he has developed
elsewhere to the effect that the bilateral party structure, while at the core of the
practice of tort law, has no intrinsic justification in the economic approach.60 The
identities of the victim and the injurer, and the normative relationship between
the two, are of only contingent importance to the economic account. All that
ultimately matters for efficiency is that future actors are optimally incentivized
to minimize the cost of accidents. It is a contingent matter whether the bilateral
party structure serves this larger social purpose.
    The intuitive attractiveness of Coleman’s argument can be attributed to the
idea that the central features of tort law hold together in a tight manner that
bespeaks a coherent enterprise of delivering corrective justice. One question
that deserves more attention than Coleman has given it is this: On what basis
does a feature of tort law count as sufficiently important such that it should be
accounted for within a pragmatic conceptualist account? The particular question
of interest here is whether the jury should play a role in Coleman’s account. It
currently does not. The jury poses two questions for Coleman: First, what
is the intended breadth of his interpretive account? Second, does it apply to
Commonwealth tort law, which generally does not rely on the jury? If the
                      Rejection of Negligence Paradigm                        235

answer to the second question is yes, then whose “practice” is being interpreted?
Coleman’s account is in danger of sliding from interpretation of an actual legal
practice into pure analytic philosophizing about an ideal form of law. If the
answer to the second question is no, that is, if the account is meant to be an
interpretive account of American tort law, on what basis can Coleman exclude
the jury from his account?
    It is an important element of Coleman’s pragmatist approach that practice
and principle are to be understood in light of one another. Accordingly, the
introduction of an additional component of practice raises the question as to
whether some further principle is thereby implicated. By the lights of his own
theory, the question posed to Coleman in this regard is whether the jury’s role
is “normatively significant” and, if so, whether this role can be fairly said to
“embody” principle.61 These two questions will be the focus of the following
discussion. How they are answered will determine the importance of the jury
to Coleman’s account. If the jury’s role is not “normatively significant,” there
is no need to consider the second question as to whether the jury somehow
embodies principles. On the other hand, the answer to the first question may be
yes, the jury is normatively significant, while the answer to the second question
is no, the jury does not embody principle. A third possibility is that the jury’s
role embodies a principle of special interest, corrective justice. In this case,
inclusion of jury practice in the overall account of negligence may support a
corrective justice interpretation. Finally, jury practice may embody norms or
principles other than, or in addition to, corrective justice.
    As earlier discussion indicated, the jury’s role in American tort litigation
is normatively significant in a number of respects, both substantive and pro-
cedural. Most importantly, juror norms give content to the reasonable person
standard. Courts do not tell jurors how to interpret the concept of reasonable-
ness. Consequently, jurors must draw on their own understanding of reasonable
behavior, based on their experience of the world. When an action in question
is an instance of an extant social practice of a community, the jury will be able
to consult their personal knowledge of the general functioning of the practice
and, equally important, consult their knowledge of the extent of community
acceptance of the practice.62 For purposes of evaluating Coleman’s theory, a
definitive account of the role of jurors is not necessary as the five-stage account
examined earlier is sufficient to establish that the jury’s role is normatively sig-
nificant. The analysis may accordingly proceed to a consideration of Coleman’s
second criterion, which is whether the jury’s role in negligence law embodies
    Coleman does not discuss the jury’s role in any detail so it is necessary
to draw inferences from his theory. The obvious first question to ask is what
is the result, in terms of the embodiment of principle, when Coleman’s cor-
rective justice account is extended to encompass the role played by the jury?
Coleman would likely contend that the jury’s role is simply to follow the judge’s
236                           negligent norms

instructions by applying the legal standard that is handed down to them to the
facts of the case. Because the fault standard applied in the context of bilateral
adjudication embodies the principle of corrective justice, when the jury finds
on the question of negligence under this standard, it is participating in the pro-
duction of an outcome that embodies corrective justice. Specifically, the jury is
redressing a “wrongful loss” that occurred when defendant injured plaintiff.63
Thus, Coleman has a plausible account as to how the jury’s role in tort practice
may be compatible with his corrective justice account.
    There is a problem with this account, however. Simply because jury outcomes
may be compatible with corrective justice does not imply that they will always
be compatible, as the jury may also act in a manner that would not plausibly
be deemed correctively just. The important question, then, is what reason is
there to suppose that juries are typically acting to promote corrective justice
rather than some broader set of norms? Coleman does not directly address this
question. He does, however, note the existence of “our ordinary intuitions about
corrective justice.”64 If Coleman is correct that corrective justice intuitions are
commonplace, then when a situation arises in which people are capable of
carrying out corrective justice, such as when they find themselves serving on a
jury in a tort suit, they will be able to do so, and they will be inclined to do so.
    Thus, it appears that Coleman’s corrective justice explanation of tort law
depends on an implicit premise to the effect that people are characteristically
inclined to act based on a natural inclination to redress wrongful losses when it
is in their power to do so. This empirically based premise, if it is one on which he
relies, is worthy of further exploration. Perhaps this exploration will end up lend-
ing support to the corrective justice account. Empirical studies have indicated
that people acting in many different contexts may display fairness motivations
under certain circumstances. There clearly appears to be more evidence that
people are motivated by fairness than by the motivation to promote aggregate
wealth or efficiency. Whether this suggests that they would be motivated by
corrective justice concerns as well is not certain.65
    For all we know, when given the chance, jurors may also correct for unjust
income disparities, a history of chattel slavery, or other injustices that go beyond
simply correcting for the defendant’s imposition of a wrongful loss on plaintiff.
Suppose, for instance, that the jury determined liability in a particular case
primarily because of the “deep pockets” of the defendant in combination with
the ethnicity of the plaintiff. Presumably, Coleman would not wish to claim that
this outcome embodied corrective justice, despite the bilateral structure of the
litigation or the fact that the judge had instructed the jury to apply the reasonable
person standard. These possible scenarios compel the conclusion that a jury’s
finding on the issue of liability may be, but is not necessarily, an instance of
corrective justice.66
    In defense of Coleman’s account, it could be replied that the judge’s instruc-
tions will often tell the jury not to take account of factors such as the parties’
                       Rejection of Negligence Paradigm                         237

wealth or whether the defendant is likely to be insured. Coleman could plau-
sibly claim that these instructions serve as structural features that support his
claim that tort law embodies corrective justice rather than some broader set of
norms. Other features of courtroom activity may, however, support the claim
that a broader set of norms may come into play. For example, during the trial,
lawyers for either party will try to shape the jury’s sympathies toward their
own client along any promising normative dimension that serves their client’s
interests and not just with respect to a concern for redressing wrongful losses.
    Coleman may respond that he has never claimed that corrective justice is
the only normative principle embedded in tort. Rather, his claim is that correc-
tive justice is at the core. Coleman notes that “corrective justice . . . expresses
important moral values.”67 More broadly, Coleman argues that tort must be
understood within a broader context of liberal political theory.
    Arguably, looking at the jury’s normatively complex role may support
Coleman’s claim, as it does appear that even if other normative influences are
at play, the impulse toward redressing the wrongful loss to the plaintiff because
of the defendant’s injurious act may nevertheless be the dominant impulse.
Further, Coleman may argue that even if jurors do not have a natural inclination
solely toward duties of repair for wrongful losses, perhaps they might deliver
corrective justice because that is what they are instructed to do by the judge. A
look at pattern jury instructions, however, shows that this is not the case. These
instructions make no mention of duties of repair for wrongful losses. The jury is
instructed on the reasonable person standard. There is nothing in the meaning of
the words reasonable, person, or standard that tells a group of jurors who would
not otherwise be disposed to redress wrongful losses to go ahead and do so.
    In his attack on the economic account for failing to capture the structure of
tort, Coleman observes that were the economic model true, “the judge would
instruct the jury to find against the party who is in the best position to reduce
harm in the future.”68 Coleman continues, “In other words, were the concept
of efficiency embedded in tort law, we should expect to have an entirely
different structure and content to the practice of reasoning.”69 It is not clear that
Coleman’s corrective justice account can pass this test. Coleman opens himself
up to the same criticism he uses against the economist: If his is the best account,
then why is it not the case that judges instruct juries in terms of “duty to repair”
for “wrongful losses”? What is needed is an account connecting the language
used by judges in their instructions and the calling forth of jury actions that serve
to redress wrongful losses. In other words, Coleman needs an explanation for
why what the jury does somehow tracks what would be called for by the substan-
tive conception of responsibility for wrongful losses that Coleman argues to be
    Summing up, then, the jury’s role in American tort law may embody
both substantive and procedural principles in addition to the principle of
corrective justice. Depending on the relative importance of these principles in
238                          negligent norms

comparison to the principle of corrective justice, Coleman may still be correct
that corrective justice nevertheless forms the core of tort law. This further
examination may as well prove him wrong, however. This important issue
bears greater discussion than may be pursued here.

This chapter explored one important respect in which the dominant paradigms of
negligence are misguided. This is with respect to their treatment of the jury. We
first saw that the Restatement provides an incorrect account of the substantive
content of the reasonable person standard. The Restatement presented a picture
in which jurors perform the Hand Test to determine whether the defendant
acted reasonably and hence whether the defendant will be held liable. This
normatively driven picture fails as a descriptive account, however, owing to the
lack of empirical support.
    Coleman’s account is not so obviously incorrect. While it may be quite
implausible to suggest that the norms of ordinary jurors track the demands of
cost–benefit analysis, it is less implausible to suggest that these norms might
somehow track some ordinary conception of doing justice between victims and
injurers. Nevertheless, Coleman owes us an explanation as to why the norms that
appear to affect jury deliberations somehow lead to outcomes that are accurately
characterized as instances of corrective justice, given the heterogeneity of the
normative inputs.
    Coleman’s account and the proposed Restatement are leading examples of
the dominant corrective justice and economic approaches. If we are to make
full progress toward an account of negligence that adequately countenances
the jury norm effect, it will be necessary in the future for scholars to expand
the scope of examination to other accounts of negligence as well. All in all, a
new theory of negligence may be needed, one that provides a more accurate
account of the jury’s important role in the practice of tort law in America. While
the beginnings of this project are contained in the foregoing discussion, much
remains to be done.
    The preceding remarks bring to a close the discussion of the role of norms
and customs that has transpired over the six chapters that make up Part Two.
The goal of Part Two was to apply the theory of norms developed in Part One
to tort law. Part Two began in Chapter Six with a look at the historical and
jurisprudential underpinnings of the rule of custom. Chapter Six then looked
in detail at the historically important example of customary easements in land.
We looked at the strategic structure of some prominent examples of customary
land usages. We saw that the norms motivating the decisions appear to be a
mixture of welfarist and nonwelfarist impulses. The specific nonwelfarist side
constraint we uncovered in the normative interpretation was one that arose in
situations of induced detrimental reliance.
                      Rejection of Negligence Paradigm                        239

    Chapters Seven through Nine explored the rule of custom from within a
welfarist perspective. In particular, the one holding that courts seek to maximize
welfare. I first discussed the historical shift from the dominance of the per se
rule of custom to the evidentiary rule of custom. I argued that courts will want
to apply different versions of the rule of custom depending on the welfare
factors in play, and the rational structure of the underlying custom. We saw
that the same three types of customs from Part One are salient in Part Two as
each of these types has distinctive welfare markers. The analysis indicated that
there were thirty-seven different types of rational custom. The evidentiary rule
was the best choice in only eight of the thirty-seven possibilities. This has the
practical implication of calling into question the dominance of the evidentiary
rule of custom.
    Finally, Chapters Ten and Eleven moved outside of the welfarist framework.
We saw that the heterogeneous norms of jurors are in important part constitutive
of the de facto liability standard. This juror norm effect is not best interpreted
in terms of welfare maximization. Thus, the dominant Hand Test paradigm for
negligence is shown to be an inaccurate characterization of the actual case law
liability standard. Next, Part Three will apply the pattern conception of norms
to the more specific topic of Internet privacy.
                                part three
            C Y B E R S PAC E P R I VAC Y N O R M S

     Information privacy is a social goal, not a technological one. To achieve informa-
     tion privacy goals will require social innovations, including the formation of new
     norms and perhaps new legal rules to establish boundary lines between acceptable
     and unacceptable uses of personal information.†
                                                                     Pamela Samuelson

†   Pamela Samuelson, “Privacy as Intellectual Property?,” 52 Stan. L. Rev. 1125, 1126.
   Harmful Online Personal Data Practices

   [Nonconsensual website interactions are] particularly likely when incentives are
   asymmetrically distributed in the community, as when buyers and sellers have
   their own conflicting norms. The norm that results from this conflict may represent
   a variety of things besides consensus: superior bargaining power on the prevailing
   side, collective action problems on the other side, or the use of strategic behavior.1
                                                                           Mark Lemley

There is a burgeoning privacy crisis caused in large part to the explosive growth
of the Internet.2 In large measure, this crisis has emerged in a legal vacuum, as
there is little positive law that directly regulates the private collection of personal
data. Because of this legal vacuum, informal social norms have the potential to
play an especially important role in the regulation of data collection online.3 This
chapter begins an examination of the emergence of website norms pertaining
to data collection that have emerged in the past decade.4 This examination will
provide another occasion to test the pattern conception of norms developed
in Part One and further explored in Part Two. This case study will also be
instructive regarding the possibilities for more effective regulation of online
privacy, on a going forward basis.
    The vast majority of commercial websites use their interactions with con-
sumers as the occasion to collect personal data about these consumers.5 The
connection between the collection of personal data and personal privacy is
straightforward; the more personal data that websites collect, store, and use, the
less privacy that data subjects have. This reduction in privacy may be justified
if the data subjects agree to exchange their personal information for something
they prefer more.6 Typically, however, personal data has been taken by websites
without the subject’s knowledge or consent.7 Commercial websites behave in
this morally dubious, but commercially reasonable, manner for two reasons.
First, personal data is not owned; hence, it is not unlawful to collect it without
consent. Second, in the emerging digital economy, personal data is becoming
244                    cyberspace privacy norms

increasingly valuable.8 Given these facts, it is no surprise that commercial web-
sites collect and use as much personal data as possible, and at a growing rate.9
Due to a torrent of media exposure, there is a growing public awareness of the
data-collection norms of the website industry and the ramifications of these
norms for personal privacy.10
    Public awareness of this erosion in privacy has precipitated public outrage.
Opinion polls show increasing public concern with respect to online privacy.11
This outrage sets the stage for rapid policy shifts by private industry and law-
makers alike. The U.S. Congress increasingly has shown an interest in enacting
omnibus privacy legislation.12 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) repeat-
edly has articulated an interest in regulating online data collection.13 Although
increased governmental regulation of online privacy likely will ensue, norms
and customs will continue to play a significant role as a result of the continued
strength of the norm favoring Internet self-regulation.14
    Because of the importance of informal social and industry norms in regulat-
ing privacy in cyberspace, this topic presents a natural arena for the application
of law and norms theory. As discussed earlier in the book, based on empirical
studies of ranching and farming communities in Northern California, Ellickson
developed the hypothesis that efficient norms will emerge in “close-knit
communities.”15 These norms will serve as solutions to the iterated “collective-
action problems” faced by the group.16
    With regard to Ellickson’s hypothesis, the Internet may present an especially
difficult context for the emergence of efficient norms, however, because online
participants would appear to be anything but close-knit.17 The apparent impli-
cation is that website privacy norms are inefficient because they are the product
of communities that are not close-knit.18 Thus, even though these norms indeed
are emerging rapidly, there is reason to conclude that they are not moving to-
ward greater efficiency. The task at hand, then, is not only to examine how and
why website privacy norms are emerging, but also to evaluate and hopefully
improve their efficiency, as well as other normatively desirable properties, such
as their ability to promote respect for Internet users.
    The concept of privacy is itself generally understood in rights-based terms.19
In an online context, there is frequent discussion of the need for greater respect
for privacy. Phrased simply, respect is a deontological concept. Despite the
rhetorical focus on deontological concepts, the emergence of online privacy
norms that has occurred over the last decade is equally well described as a
move toward a more efficient regime of regulation of the flow of personal data.
One of the goals of the following discussion will be to establish a compatibility
thesis with regard to privacy and utility.20 The crucial norms that have begun
to emerge in the website industry are both more efficient and more respectful
of privacy.
    The compatibility between efficiency and privacy has been possible because
respect for data privacy has been cashed out in terms of autonomy. Respect for
                   Harmful Online Personal Data Practices                     245

privacy does not require minimizing the amount of personal data that is col-
lected and processed.21 Rather, it requires that data collection and processing
not violate the autonomy of the data subject. Data collection that is respectful
of autonomy is accomplished through the mechanism of consent.22 When data
subjects consent to the use and collection of their data by websites, then the
websites are collecting data in a manner that respects the autonomy of the data
subjects. These exchanges of data for valuable consideration are also produc-
tive of social utility because through exchange each party is able to receive
something it prefers more by trading away something it prefers less.
    This chapter will first look at the original privacy norms that emerged at
the Web’s inception in the early 1990s.23 Two groups have been the main
contributors to the emergence of these norms; the thousands of commercial
websites on the early Web, on the one hand, and the millions of users of
the early Web, on the other hand. The main structural feature of these norms
was that websites benefited through the largely unrestricted collection of per-
sonal data, while consumers suffered injury due to the degradation of their
personal privacy from this data collection. In other words, degradation of con-
sumer privacy resulted as a third-party externality of free-market data-collection
norms of the website industry.24 Broadly speaking, then, these injuries oc-
curred in a tort context as the injurers and victims were not in a bargaining
relationship with regard to the injurer’s procurement of the victim’s personal
    Next, the chapter will examine the strategic structure of the relationships
between websites and consumers that allowed these highly exploitative norms
to flourish. Analysis will indicate that consumers faced a large-scale collective
action problem. There is a collective good that consumers potentially could
have achieved, namely, the abatement of disrespectful data-collection practices
by websites. Web users would have great difficulty in organizing to secure this
collective good, however, because of their large numbers and lack of repeat
play and overlapping relationships.26
    Reacting to this suboptimal but stable social situation, “norm entrepreneurs”
entered the picture.27 Three main types of norm entrepreneurs have been in-
volved: public-interest advocates, website industry advocates, and governmen-
tal actors, particularly the Federal Trade Commission. Chapter 13 will examine
how new, more respectful website privacy norms recently have begun to emerge,
due largely to the efforts of these norm entrepreneurs. In the short history of
the Internet, there has been a major shift – a “norm-cascade” – toward more
respectful privacy norms.28 The transition has been from a wild-west world
in which websites did almost whatever they wanted with impunity to a world
in which a significant percentage of websites are explicitly addressing privacy
concerns. Norm entrepreneurs, in particular, privacy norm proselytizers, have
been the prime movers in this transition.29 Overall, an aspirational grundnorm
of respect for website data privacy has begun to emerge in American culture
246                    cyberspace privacy norms

generally.30 Only time will tell whether this grundnorm can become more ade-
quately instantiated in actual online practices.
   It is important that the policy community better understand the mechanics
whereby more respectful website privacy norms have emerged. If better norms
are already emerging through informal social processes and minimalist gov-
ernmental guidance, there may not be a need for sweeping legislation of the
sort currently being proposed by the FTC, as well as by many privacy advo-
cates who suggest that the United States adopt the comprehensive European
model of privacy regulation, despite its evident tension with sacred free speech

                  I. The Original Website Privacy Norms
The first message sent across the Internet occurred one month after the moon
landing in late 1969.32 In theory, from that moment onward, the Internet could
have been used by one person to gather personal data about another person
impermissibly. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest, however,
that the invasion of data privacy was a problem in this early stage of the
Internet’s development. One reason may be that, in this early period, the Internet
was mainly used by academic researchers working in shared disciplines. Such
groups tend to have fairly small numbers and overlapping, multiple interactions.
In Ellickson’s terms, these were close-knit communities in which there would
have been internal incentives to deter opportunistic behavior.33
    It took the occurrence of two events in the 1990s to set in motion the series
of developments that would lead to the current privacy crisis. The first was the
invention of the World Wide Web in the early 1990s by Tim Berners-Lee.34
Once the core features of the Web were in place, the Internet became dramati-
cally easier to use, and a vast flowering of websites spurted up spontaneously
and rapidly. These were not electronic-commerce sites, however, as the Na-
tional Science Foundation did not then permit commercial use of the Internet.35
The Web was not available for consumers until the first Bush Administration
zoned cyberspace for commercial use.36 The commercialization of cyberspace
is the second event that precipitated the privacy crisis, as commercial web-
sites have been the main users of personal data collected under questionable
    Early commercial website norms facilitated data collection in two ways.
First, many websites explicitly requested user information. Second, many web-
sites collected data that was produced as a byproduct of website/consumer
interactions, such as when consumers provided their credit card numbers or
mailing addresses to sites. With the introduction of these online techniques of
data collection, the commodification of personal data entered a phase of rapid
acceleration, as each of these initial means of data collection was soon improved
upon by websites.37
                   Harmful Online Personal Data Practices                      247

   Regarding explicit requests for data, websites soon began conditioning ac-
cess to their sites, or to prized pages within their sites, on the provision by
website visitors of some personal data. For example, one who wanted to re-
ceive the New York Times online had to fill out a detailed data questionnaire
first. Alternatively, users might receive discounts, coupons, or free entry in
contests as an inducement for the provision of information.
   Regarding the collection of data without consumer notice, websites soon
began to deploy sophisticated technological means of data gathering, such as
cookies.38 Cookie technology allows a website’s server to place information
about a consumer’s visits to the site on the user’s computer in a text file that only
the website’s server can read. In the early period especially, because cookies
were planted secretly and subsequently operated seamlessly, Web users were
typically unaware of the fact that data about them was being gathered.39 In other
words, there was no bargain between the parties; the data was simply spirited
   When using cookies, a website assigns each consumer a unique identifier41
so that the consumer may be recognized in subsequent visits to the site.42 In
this manner, the site engages in “passive tracking” of the consumer.43 On each
return visit, the site can call up user-specific information, which typically will
include the consumer’s preferences or interests, as indicated by pages the con-
sumer accessed in prior visits, items the consumer clicked on while at the site,
or information downloaded.44 Cookies make it easier for firms to engage in
highly targeted marketing.45 Cookie technology has proven to be extremely
valuable to online companies because it not only enables merchants to target
products and services that are increasingly tailored to consumer preferences
but it also permits other companies to boost their revenues by selling more
highly valued advertising space on their web sites.46 As Michael Froomkin
says, cookies are the tip of the iceberg.47 Once firms collect personal data, they
may then aggregate it, or sell it to others who aggregate it, into databases con-
taining profiles of named individuals. For example, a firm named Acxiom cur-
rently holds personal and financial information about nearly all U.S., U.K., and
Australian consumers.48 The personal-data norms of the early website industry
are characterized in the following list.
       personal-data norms of the early website industry
1. Websites may freely gather as much personal data as desirable from
2. Websites need not ask permission to gather personal data.
3. Websites need not inform consumers of their data-gathering practices.
4. Websites may use personal data in any manner they prefer, such as selling
   or licensing it to third parties.
5. Websites need not allow consumers access to their data.
6. Websites need not provide security for personal data in their possession.
248                    cyberspace privacy norms

    The most striking feature of these early website personal-data norms is that
they were completely geared toward serving the interests of the website industry.
They reflect the fact that most websites felt neither legal nor social pressure
to respect the data privacy of the visitors to their sites. There was no legal
pressure because there were no laws on the books that clearly prescribed these
practices, and there was little social pressure because most people had little or
no awareness that these practices were taking place.49 In other words, these
norms did not reflect any informal bargaining taking place between websites
and consumers.
    The fact that they emerged in a context in which there was a lack of bargain-
ing is the most salient feature of the personal-data norms of the early website
industry. Despite a lack of bargaining, there may be reason to think that these
norms were efficient. They are potentially justifiable from an economic perspec-
tive, as websites take something from the public domain that was under utilized
and put it to productive use. Like campers in a wooded area who collect fallen
branches for use in their campfires, websites, on this view, are simply making
use of a common resource that would otherwise be left lying in an unproductive
state. After all, great quantities of personal data are produced as a by-product
of other online activities. If not collected, this data would simply go unused.
In fact, the economic argument in favor of shared use of personal information
is stronger than it is for downed wood. Personal data is a nonrival good in the
classic economic sense of the term; collection and use of personal data by one
website does not diminish the amount available, either for other websites or for
the data subject herself to use.50 Because data is nonrival, arguably it should
be left unregulated so that the greatest number of users will have free access to
its use.
    In this regard, note the important difference between personal data and cre-
ative expression of the sort protected by copyright law. Creative expression –
original works of authorship – received legal protection, pursuant to Article I
of the U.S. Constitution, in order to create incentives for authors to produce
works.51 Such an incentive is not necessary for the production of personal data,
however, because it is produced as a by-product of living a life. Thus, there
would appear to be a presumption in favor of treating personal data as a public
good available to all.
    There is an important disanalogy, however, between personal data and other
shared goods such as fallen branches in a national forest. No one need suffer an
injury when downed wood is burned, whereas data subjects often suffer signif-
icant harm when their personal information is used by others. Commentators
have noted a wide variety of harms that may arise due to improper online data
collection and use.
    One type of harm is identity theft. Identity theft occurs when one person
intentionally assumes another person’s online identity. Thus far, identity thieves
have typically gone on shopping sprees at the expense of their victims, but the
                    Harmful Online Personal Data Practices                      249

possibilities for abuse through identity theft will grow as the functionality of
the Internet expands.52 Another type of harm that has received a good deal
of attention is predation on children. Prior to recent legislation, children were
especially vulnerable to questionable website practices.53 A wide variety of
detailed personal information has been collected online from children through
various stratagems, such as encouraging a child to register for a contest, enroll
in an electronic “pen pal” program, complete a survey, sign up for informational
updates, or play a game. Still other sites used “imaginary” characters to request
information from children, or had them sign a “guest book.”54 Data-gathering
norms of the early website industry, however, did not distinguish children from
adults. All visitors were equally disrespected.
    Alternatively, harms may result as the foreseen but unintended consequences
of mundane business operations, such as when firms use private medical infor-
mation of potential employees in making hiring decisions. For example, one-
third of Fortune 500 companies use personal medical information in hiring,
promotion, or termination decisions.55 This has the significant policy conse-
quence that many people are failing to seek medical diagnosis and treatment.56
    Some commentators have used the fact that personal data has a public-goods
structure to argue that website/consumer interactions will be inefficient.57 The
mere fact that websites need not internalize the costs they create for third-party
Web users does not, by definition, mean that the resulting website privacy norms
are inefficient. The determinative factor will be a Kaldor-Hicks Test.58 This test
makes a hypothetical comparison of whether the websites’ benefits from the
activity could in principle more than compensate Web users for their losses.
As a practical matter, this determination is often exceedingly difficult to make
with any degree of certainty.
    In the eyes of many privacy advocates, the calculation is not even close,
because the loss to individual privacy is thought to be so grievous and funda-
mental as to outweigh any claim based merely on the prospect of more efficient
electronic commerce. The website industry sometimes makes pronouncements
to the effect that the benefits to industry, and therefore to consumers indirectly,
are great, while privacy-related harms, although not insignificant, are neverthe-
less relatively small and greatly exaggerated. The fact that the website industry
makes this claim cannot be taken as evidence of the industry’s true estima-
tion of the likely result of a Kaldor-Hicks Test, however, as industry speakers
can be expected to seek to maximize profit, not candor. Because of the lack
of a parallel profit motive, there may be less reason for cynicism with re-
gard to the distance between the expressed views and the actual views held by
public-interest privacy advocates. Accordingly, there is some reason to suppose
that a Kaldor-Hicks Test may favor consumers over websites.
    Some consumers, however, may be in a position on their own to sanction
misuses of their personal data.59 If it is the sort of site that one might visit on a
repeated basis, then users can sanction these sites by withholding their visits and
250                     cyberspace privacy norms

instead visit competing websites. In addition, disaffected users may sanction
sites through negative gossip or criticism. Consumers also may adopt self-
help measures such as supplying false information to the site.60 Under typical
circumstances, this behavior would be ruled out by a widely shared norm against
deception and lying. But there is a competing norm of turnabout-is-fair-play,
which may prove dispositive for numerous people who might otherwise not be
given to deception.
    The problem, however, is that all of these self-help measures assume that
consumers have knowledge of the data extraction practices of offending web-
sites. It is precisely for this reason that websites have generally sought at all
costs to avoid explicit disclosure of their personal-data practices. Even when
the consumer is aware that personal data is being collected, there is still the
potential for abuse because consumers may be unaware of the uses to which
their data is being put. For example, a user might be passively aware that per-
sonal data, such as credit card number or mailing address, are being collected
but have no idea that this data is then being used by a website for purposes
other than processing payment or mailing a product. In particular, many sites
furtively sell data to third parties.61
    The website industry did not trumpet the fact that the website industry data-
collection norms discussed previously characterized its behavior with regard to
the collection of personal data. The industry maintained these norms because it
was profit maximizing and legal for individual websites to conform to them, not
because the managers of the various online firms, acting as a coherent group,
wished to establish justified norms of obligatory behavior for their industry.
Thus, it served the website industry’s interests that these norms in general
remained unarticulated. This highlights the fact that norms, at their core, are
patterns of behavior as opposed to rules, statements, or other linguistic entities.62
    The early website norms are fairly described as permissive norms. They
create normative freedom for their conformers rather than obligations or
constraints.63 This is noteworthy because norms theorists often write as if norms
by definition express obligatory behavior.64 One illuminating way to conceive
of the project of privacy norm proselytizers, then, is that their goal is to shift
website norms from permissive norms to obligatory norms.

           II. Game-Theoretic Structure of the Original Website
                         Personal Data Norms
The purpose of informal game theory is to model the strategic structure of social
situations. The most famous and perhaps pervasive strategic structure of interest
to social scientists and policymakers has been the structure variously known
as the Prisoner’s Dilemma, collective action problem, public good problem, or
Tragedy of the Commons.65 As the following discussion will demonstrate, the
collective action problem is applicable to the topic of online privacy.
                   Harmful Online Personal Data Practices                     251

   Much less understood than the collective action problem is the coordination
game. While political scientists, economists, and philosophers have been devel-
oping a deeper understanding of strategic coordination for a generation, legal
theorists have only recently come to appreciate its significance. The following
discussion will demonstrate that coordination games have an important role to
play in modeling the strategic structure of some of the social situations that
undergird the online privacy debate.
   This section has three parts, each of which will explore a strategic situation
of concern to the privacy debate. Once these distinct strategic structures are
understood, it will be easier to proceed on a path toward more respectful and
efficient online personal-data norms. Section II.A considers whether the original
permissive norms of the website industry can be accurately modeled as failed
solutions to an iterated collective action problem. This question arises because
the FTC has remarked that it intuitively views the situation in these terms. I
argue in Section II.B, however, that this characterization is incorrect. Instead,
the original, permissive norms of the website industry are best modeled as a
multiparty coordination game. Getting clear on this distinction matters tremen-
dously because it affects how various norm entrepreneurs should approach the
task of bringing about more respectful practices in the website industry. Sec-
tion II.C demonstrates that there is a significant collective action problem. It is
website users, not the websites, however, who face a collective action problem.
Their collective action problem arises with regard to organizing themselves to
demand more respectful privacy norms.

          A. Purported Website Industry Collective Action Problem
The FTC contends that it would be in the interest of the website industry to
provide better privacy protection for consumers. The idea is that by showing
more respect for the data privacy of consumers, websites will gain their trust and
confidence. This in turn will lead to substantial growth in electronic commerce
as trusting consumers will be more inclined to use the Internet to conduct their
business. In its 1999 Report to Congress, the FTC stated that, “The Commis-
sion’s efforts have been based on the belief that greater protection of personal
privacy on the Web will not only benefit consumers, but also benefit indus-
try by increasing consumer confidence and ultimately their participation in the
online marketplace.”66 In testimony before Congress, Marc Rotenberg of the
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) made a similar assertion: “Users
of web-based services and operators of web-based services have a common
interest in promoting good privacy practices. Strong privacy standards provide
assurance that personal information will not be misused, and should encourage
the development of on-line commerce.”67
   As these remarks indicate, both the FTC and EPIC think that it would be in
the interest of the website industry to be more solicitous of the privacy concerns
252                     cyberspace privacy norms

of consumers, in order to bring about greater user trust, which in turn will lead
to a more robust online marketplace. This shared assumption by these leading
online policymakers is crucial because of the policy implications that the FTC
appears to think flow from it. Specifically, if it is in the industry’s interest
to respect privacy, bringing about more respectful practices will be a task of
creating recognition across the website industry of the importance of privacy
for consumers and why it is in the industry’s interest to be solicitous of this
concern of consumers. Not surprisingly, then, the FTC has sought to promote
more respectful industry practices by means of educating the website industry.
The FTC has held a number of workshops and related events with the goal of
raising industry consciousness of the importance of data privacy.68
    The problem with the FTC’s education program, however, is that it implic-
itly treats the website industry as if it were a unitary actor capable of behaving
in a concerted fashion so as to promote its collective goals. In its belief that
its education program could achieve this result, the FTC unwittingly falls prey
to the so-called fallacy of composition.69 This is the fallacy of thinking that
because a group, considered as a whole, would benefit from some particular
political outcome, that therefore it is in the interest of each of the particular
members of that group to do its part to help bring about this political out-
come. It is simply false to assume that a typical website would have such an
    The benefit of a particular website’s individual contribution to the collective
good, for all but the largest sites, will be marginal. Whether the collective good
comes about almost surely will not depend on the additional contribution of the
particular site. Thus, from a narrowly rational, economic perspective, the site is
better off to free ride on the contributions of the other sites. Either enough other
sites cooperate and the collective good is provided, or enough other sites do not
cooperate, and the collective good is not provided. Either way, the behavior of
the particular website will have but a marginal impact. Thus, it might as well
refrain from incurring the expense of cooperating, that is, it might as well free
ride. The problem is that all the other websites are similarly situated. Each will
have a dominating preference to free ride. The result is that all will free ride
and the collective good will not be produced.
    The strategic structure of this situation may be represented as shown in
Figure 12.1.
    Figure 12.1 displays the strategic relationship between a particular firm, call
it Website A, and all other websites (as based on the FTC’s assumption described
at the outset of this section). As indicated by the payoffs in the southwest cell,
A’s first preference is that other firms respect privacy so that it will be able
to free ride on this set of practices and disrespect privacy. For the time being,
disrespect privacy should just be taken to mean that the site will conform to the
set of personal-data norms of the early website industry listed above, and respect
privacy should be taken to mean that the site will refrain from conforming to
                    Harmful Online Personal Data Practices                     253

                                       Website Industry

                                       Respect Privacy    Disrespect Privacy

                     Respect Privacy         3, 3                1, 4

        Website A
                        Disrespect           4, 1                2, 2

                    Figure 12.1 Website Industry Respect Game

these norms. Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen will provide greater content to the
notion of respecting consumer data privacy.
    In the circumstance in which A free rides on the respectful behavior of the
other sites, A receives the highest payoff, 4. According to the FTC, when other
firms respect privacy, consumers will be less fearful of the Internet and con-
sequently more prone to participate in electronic commerce. This will make
it easier for website A to benefit from its own disrespectful practices, as con-
sumers will be less leery of providing personal data to the site, based on their
generally positive experiences with other sites.
    The problem is that the same strategic situation pertains for the other websites
as well. Each website would like all the other websites to be respectful so that
it alone can take advantage of the more trusting consumers. Because defection
is the dominant strategy for all, however, the southeast cell will be the result.
Note that in the southeast cell, each website receives 2, its second lowest payoff.
If, however, the website industry were to be successful in solving its collective
action problem, the situation as characterized in the northwest cell would obtain
instead. In this situation, each website would receive 3, its second highest
    Note the distressing result that even though all parties would do better by
cooperating and thus ending up in the northwest cell, because of the fact that
each is compelled by narrow self-interest to perform the noncooperative action,
the mutually dispreferred group outcome as represented in the southeast cell is
the actual result.71 We see then that individually maximizing behavior leads to
a collectively suboptimal result – the classic collective action problem.
    Uncovering this strategic structure inherent in the relationship among web-
sites has important policy implications. Recall that one of the FTC’s initiatives
to promote online privacy was to educate the website industry about the connec-
tion between treating consumers with respect and the expansion of electronic
commerce. In light of the preceding discussion, however, it is clear that things
are not so simple; educating the industry participants as to their collective
254                    cyberspace privacy norms

interest will in no way address the collective action problem faced by each of
the particular members of the industry with regard to the supply of this collec-
tive good. Education may enhance the appreciation of each of the members as
to the value of the potential collective good available to the group, but it will
not change the incentives of individual members so as to bring the group any
closer to realizing the collective good.
    It will be difficult for the website industry to solve this collective action
problem on its own. According to Ellickson’s hypothesis, close-knit communi-
ties may produce solutions to collective action problems because they provide
opportunities for repeat play and multiplex relationships among “neighbors.”72
When there is repeated interaction, parties may have an incentive to reach a mu-
tually preferable manner of interaction because they will take their long-term
interests into account, and these will often favor cooperation in current games
in order to foster cooperation in future games. In the present context, this would
mean individual websites not defecting on the cooperative behavior necessary
to bring about a higher level of consumer trust in online commerce.
    It may not be possible to apply Ellickson’s hypothesis in the present context,
however, because it is unclear whether the notions of “close-knittedness” or
“neighbor” have any reference in cyberspace. Ellickson provides an extended
discussion of land-use practices of the close-knit ranching and farming com-
munity that inhabits Shasta County in northern California. This community’s
norms concern issues such as liability for damage done by cattle and alloca-
tion of the costs of fencing, so as to avoid damage from cattle. This discussion
implicitly assumes that the space in which interaction was taking place was
physical space, not virtual space. What allows the ranchers and farmers to be
close-knit was their physical proximity, as the subtitle of Ellickson’s book –
“How Neighbors Settle Disputes” – indicates.73
    If the notion of close-knittedness is to have meaning online, then the term
must be cashed out in nongeographical terms. The Internet promotes commu-
nication, par excellence, and thus is a boon to the formation and maintenance
of social relationships. There is no reason those online relationships cannot in-
volve repeat play and be overlapping, and there is no reason they cannot involve
sanctions. Thus, the core preconditions for Ellickson’s hypothesis may in prin-
ciple be satisfied. More research is needed on the extent to which mechanisms
such as hyperlinking may provide the foundation for close-knit communities in
cyberspace. Despite the potential significance of this suggestion for our under-
standing of cyberspace generally, the implication for website privacy norms is
untoward, as the relevant relationships at issue – those between websites and
other websites, websites and users, and users and other users – are typically not
close-knit. It is simply not the case that all the numerous sites on the Internet
have repeated and overlapping interactions with one another.74 The unavoidable
conclusion appears to be that the website industry will not be able to solve its
collective action problem on its own.
                    Harmful Online Personal Data Practices                      255

    The collective action problem is a classical justification for governmental
intervention.75 Websites could simply be required to adopt more respectful
practices.76 This would have the effect of forcing websites to produce the coop-
erative outcome represented in the northwest cell in Figure 12.1. It is doubtful,
however, whether the FTC has the authority to demand that websites change
their behavior.77 Even if the FTC had the authority, if one takes their remarks
at face value, this is not authority they would care to exercise in this manner.
As discussed earlier, the FTC has all along avowed an interest in promoting
industry self-regulation to the extent possible. If the agency is to remain faith-
ful to this goal, it must somehow indirectly encourage websites to solve their
industry-wide collective action problem. Collective action problems, however,
are notoriously difficult to solve. Thus, the FTC would face an especially
daunting task in seeking to do so in an indirect manner.

                    B. Website Industry Coordination Norms
As noted at the outset of Section II.A, the analysis was based on the assumption
of the FTC that the website industry has an overriding interest in bringing about
more respectful privacy norms, if only the constituent websites could coordinate
their efforts to bring about the cooperative result. It is more plausible to suppose,
however, that the benefit of increased electronic commerce is not worth the high
cost that providing respect for privacy might impose on websites.
    The most significant cost for many sites of course will be the fact that
consumer personal data will no longer be theirs to use and manipulate at will
for free. In addition, for small sites, the very act of creating privacy policies
imposes a cost that may be significant.78 For large sites, these development costs
are of marginal importance. But sites of successful or well-funded companies
face a much larger cost: the increased exposure to litigation they face as a
result of making explicit representations to site visitors regarding the site’s
data-collection practices.79 Even if there is some marginal increase in their
online traffic due to heightened consumer trust, it is more plausible to think that
most sites would forego this benefit in order to avoid exposure to legal liability.
Thus, the problem the FTC has in seeking to foster respect for privacy by self-
regulatory means is not best modeled as the problem of helping an industry
group that is not close-knit procure a collective good. Instead, as the following
discussion demonstrates, the strategic structure faced by the website industry
is actually that of a coordination problem. Its solution could potentially result
in a desirable coordination norm.
    As set out in Chapter Two, a coordination norm is a practice in which each
conformer receives a coordination benefit for conforming to the norm. A coor-
dination benefit is the added benefit an actor receives for conformity, given the
conformity of other participants. To take a simple example, if the norm is to
walk on the right side of the sidewalk, such as it is in America, then a particular
256                     cyberspace privacy norms

conformer to this norm receives a benefit when others conform to the norm as
well, as she is less likely to be involved in a pedestrian collision.
    A coordination norm may be “an equilibrium,” a “coordination equilibrium”
or a “proper coordination equilibrium.”80 An equilibrium is a combination of
choices in which each actor has done as well as the actor can, given the choices
of the other actors. No actor will regret her choice given the choices of the
others. A coordination equilibrium is a combination of choices such that no
one would have been better off had any one actor, either the actor or someone
else, behaved differently. A proper coordination equilibrium is a combination
of choices such that no one would have been as well off had any one actor
behaved differently, either the actor or someone else.81
    Details aside, the crucial feature of coordination norms is that actors conform
to them because it is in their direct interest to do so. This contrasts with collective
action problems in which each actor’s direct preference is not to conform but
instead to defect, or free ride. With collective action problems, conformity will
be forthcoming only if the participants are able to incentivize one another to
conform due to the possibility of repeat play that results as a by-product of the
overlapping social relationships of close-knit communities. With coordination
norms, by contrast, actors want to conform, given the conformity of others.
Hence, efficient coordination norms may emerge in communities that are not
    The present concern, then, is whether personal-data practices are best mod-
eled as coordination norms. The core feature of a coordination norm is that an
actor receives a coordination benefit from performing the conforming action,
given the conformity of others. This condition is met with regard to the permis-
sive data-collection practices of the early website industry. As already noted,
particular websites have a direct interest in not showing respect for consumers.
By this means, they gain use of valuable user data at less expense and effort
and they avoid the worry of exposing themselves to legal liability by making
explicit representations to consumers as to how their data will be used.
    In addition, it is plausible to suppose that websites prefer that other websites
also fail to show respect for consumer privacy. First, websites will be able to
collect data more successfully when consumers are left in the dark. Thus, all
websites will be hurt to the extent that some particular website takes it upon
itself to be more forthcoming in telling consumers about its data-gathering
activities. The greater the public awareness of website data-gathering activities
in general, the more likely it is for consumers to be wary of the activities of any
particular website, and the more the site will be made to feel public pressure to
alter its practices in the direction of greater respect.
    The second reason why websites prefer that other websites conform to disre-
spectful privacy norms is that in privacy law, reasonable expectations of privacy
matter.83 An action in tort for invasion of privacy may be brought in civil litiga-
tion by aggrieved parties.84 In such cases, a central consideration is whether the
                    Harmful Online Personal Data Practices                      257

                                       Website Industry

                                       Respect Privacy    Disrespect Privacy

                     Respect Privacy         2, 2                1, 3

        Website A
                        Disrespect           3, 1                4, 4

                  Figure 12.2 Website Industry Coordination Game

plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy. If most websites are collecting
data at will, with no safeguards and no notice, then the website-defendant will
have a colorable defense based on the claim that the plaintiff did not have a
reasonable expectation of privacy.85
    For both of these reasons, then, it is to be expected that industry insiders
will discretely promote disrespectful norms among their number on whatever
occasions present themselves, such as through trade association meetings and
the like, as doing so strengthens the norm and consequently solidifies their safe
harbor. This means that these disrespectful website coordination norms will
tend to be stable. Particular websites will have no internal motivation to change
their behavior, and further, each site will have an incentive to motivate the other
sites to continue their disrespectful behavior.
    The original website data collection norms appear then to be proper coor-
dination equilibria, as it is the case with each particular website that it would not
have been as well off had either it or some other website acted differently by not
conforming to the disrespectful privacy practices. This situation is represented
by the payoff matrix in Figure 12.2.
    The payoff matrix in Figure 12.2 displays the outcomes received by websites
depending on whether each of them, as well as the other websites, participate
in personal data collection practices that either respect privacy of Web users,
on the one hand, or disrespect privacy of Web users, on the other hand. Note
that the payoff to a typical website, call it Website A, is affected by whether
other websites respect privacy or disrespect privacy. The dominating preference
is to disrespect privacy. Website A prefers to disrespect privacy regardless of
what other sites are doing. Thus, A’s payoffs are higher in either of the southern
cells as compared to either of the northern cells. But A receives a coordination
benefit when other sites also disrespect privacy. Thus, the payoff for A is higher
in the southeast cell as compared to the southwest cell. A least prefers the
situation represented in the northeast cell in which it respects privacy and other
sites disrespect privacy. In this situation, there will be no noticeable increase in
258                     cyberspace privacy norms

electronic commerce and yet A has lost all the benefits from the free receipt of
user data.
    Like A, other sites prefer to disrespect privacy, so their highest payouts come
in the eastern cells. They prefer, however, that A also disrespect privacy, due to
the coordination benefit of keeping consumers in the dark. Thus, the other sites
do better in the southeast as compared to the northeast cell. If the other sites are
respecting privacy, however, then they will likely prefer that A do so as well,
so that A is not at a competitive advantage. Thus, their payoff is higher in the
northwest as compared to the southwest cell.
    Note that the outcome as represented in the southeast cell in which all web-
sites are disrespecting privacy is a stable equilibrium. No website has any in-
centive to change its behavior, nor does any website have any incentive to get
another website to change its behavior. Just the opposite, each website has an
incentive to encourage each other website not to change its behavior. As should
be obvious, this is not a happy outcome from the perspective of consumers or
the FTC.

                    C. Web User Collective Action Problem
Note that the data-collection coordination norms of the website industry dis-
cussed in Section II.B may function efficiently from a point of view internal
to the conformers themselves. The harm resulting from these practices – the
degradation of personal privacy – is successfully externalized onto the Web-
surfing public.86 Because these data-collection practices are bad for consumers
as a group, there is the potential for this group to secure an important col-
lective good, the abatement of these practices. As the current section demon-
strates, however, there is a severe practical problem in consumers securing
this good.87 Consumers will face a collective action problem in seeking as
a group to bring about the collective good of more respectful website pri-
vacy practices. Thus, when the analysis of this section is combined with that
of the previous two sections, the surprising result is reached that while the
website industry does not face a collective action problem, the users of their
websites do.
    As discussed earlier in the context of website practices, standard game the-
ory teaches that groups will stand their best chance of pursuing collective goods
when their membership is close-knit such that members have repeated interac-
tions across a number of dimensions.88 This is more likely for smaller groups
than larger groups, for groups that are close to one another in geographical space,
and for groups that share similar interests, preferences, and histories. For exam-
ple, the civil rights protestors who fought for months and ultimately prevailed in
integrating Nashville’s downtown restaurants in 1960 were African-American
students of Fisk University, who had together participated in extensive group
training in Gandhian methods of passive resistance.89
                    Harmful Online Personal Data Practices                       259

    The Internet, however, makes collective action of this sort difficult. In the-
ory, privacy militants might electronically enter previously targeted sites and
all request downloads at the same time, such that the site’s servers might be
overwhelmed.90 Clearly, this technique would require a good deal of coordi-
nation and effort among a large number of people. Thus, although possible in
theory, such collective action is unlikely in practice.91 Visitors to a website are
the opposite of close-knit – they are globally interspersed strangers. Thus, a
solution to the Prisoner’s Dilemma of the sort outlined by Ellickson is unlikely
because of the larger numbers of web users who lack overlapping or close-knit
relationships. Accordingly, we can predict that extant website practices will
represent a failure by consumers to solve collective action problems regarding
the abatement of the degradation of their data privacy.
    Moreover, the mere existence of a collective action problem does not imply
that a norm, or set of norms, has been identified to deliver the potential collective
good. A particular consumer who wanted to do her part to bring about the
collective good of greater respect for consumers would not know where to start.
There are no previously identified norms of behavior which, if conformed to by
consumers, would help force websites into more respectful behavior. Because
there is no cooperative norm under way, there is no form of cooperative behavior
to internalize,92 no issue of loss of esteem for failing to be cooperative,93 and no
concern to signal to others that one is a cooperative online activist.94 It seems
unlikely, then, that better website practices will emerge as a result of consumer
collective action along the lines of any of the other leading models for solving
collective action problems.

It will be useful to summarize the preceding discussion in order to see how
the last finding regarding the dismal prospects for consumer collective action
fits in with the earlier findings. The key fact on which the whole analysis
thus far is predicated is that the original data-collection norms adopted by the
website industry demonstrated a good deal of disrespect for consumer privacy.
Essentially, the vast majority of websites have done whatever they wanted with
regard to the use of personal information on consumers, with complete disregard
for the impact of these activities on the privacy interests of these consumers.
Despite growing complaints about this significant threat to individual privacy,
the government was reticent to regulate this activity directly, apparently in
response to the widespread norm that, as much as possible, the Internet should
be left free to self-regulate.
    Internet self-regulation, at least in the context of website practices with regard
to the personal data of consumers, has been widely regarded as a failure.95 In
the preceding discussion, informal game theory was utilized in order to better
understand why self-regulation has failed to produce a set of online practices
260                    cyberspace privacy norms

that better respect consumer privacy. Generally speaking, self-regulation failed
due to the strategic structure of the underlying social situations that obtained
regarding the relationships between consumers and websites, on the one hand,
and websites with one another, on the other hand. Specifically, websites are in a
coordination game with one another, not an iterated collective action problem.
Thus, efforts to educate websites on the importance of privacy to consumers, and
on the connection between allaying consumer privacy fears and the promotion
of consumer confidence, will not work to change website behavior in the manner
desired by the FTC. Nor will consumers be able to band together to demand
more respectful privacy practices on the part of websites due to the large-scale
collective action problem they face.
   A number of commentators concluded that the failure of self-regulation to
overcome these hurdles mandated that the government step in and take a direct
role in requiring more respectful informational practices on the part of websites.
In the discussion in the next two chapters, however, it will be shown that direct
government regulation of website practices has in fact not been required to bring
about more respectful privacy practices, at least on the part of some websites.
        The Emergence of Online Privacy

   Companies used to think of customer data as theirs. They’re starting to realize
   they’re really custodians, and the customer controls the information.1
                                                                     Peter Brondmo

Over the past few years, the norms governing personal data interactions between
consumers and websites have changed dramatically. There is an increasing
moral sensitivity regarding the commercial collection and use of personal
data.2 The social meaning of personal data collection has changed from a
morally neutral to a morally charged status.3 Consumers now perceive a general
right to privacy in cyberspace that includes respectful treatment of personal
data. This change arose not by accident or necessity but from the inten-
tional actions of actors possessing an interest in promoting online privacy. I
will designate these actors as privacy norm proselytizers.4
    Social meanings attach to social norms; one method of changing social norms
is to alter their social meanings.5 For example, changing the social meaning
associated with smoking is one way to regulate cigarette smoking among teens.
As long as smoking retains a cool and rebellious mystique, it will be difficult
to eradicate the practice.6 Analogously, privacy norm proselytizers are in the
process of changing the social meaning associated with websites’ collection
and use of personal data.7
    The set of normative concepts that increasingly surround the practice in
popular discourse is evidence that consumers are developing a more complex
normative understanding. Notably, interactions between websites and their vis-
itors are increasingly framed in terms of privacy. Privacy is among the most
potent normative concepts of the modern age.8 Proponents of personal data pri-
vacy have won a substantial victory now that data is widely understood to raise
concerns for a new species of privacy: informational or data privacy. Not long
262                    cyberspace privacy norms

ago, these expanded privacy concepts did not exist in either popular discourse
or the moral theory lexicon.
    Privacy is generally conceptualized as a right.9 In ordinary moral under-
standing, rights function differently than preferences. Our preferences do not
imply the existence of desired rights. By contrast, we have rights even if we do
not prefer to exercise them. This is true for many individuals regarding their
right of religious expression. Although they may have no desire to express their
religious views, they may nevertheless place value in their right to do so. The
same is true for personal data. Many people may not desire to actively control
their personal data online; however, they may be inclined to support such a
moral entitlement.
    Increasingly, a consumer’s entitlement to control her personal data is
recognized.10 Where does this growing sense of entitlement come from? It
is primarily the result of the efforts of privacy norm entrepreneurs proselytiz-
ing to consumers regarding their entitlement to exercise control over personal
data.11 The word proselytize is appropriate because it would be unhelpfully
reductionist to describe these entrepreneurs as merely fostering preferences for
data privacy in the manner that Madison Avenue seeks to create preferences.
Instilling a sense of moral entitlement to data privacy is fundamentally different
from instilling a preference for Coke over Pepsi. Privacy norm proselytizers seek
to arouse the moral consciousness of consumers vis-` -vis websites’ collection
and use of their personal data.12
    As consumers increasingly perceive an entitlement, there is a corresponding
tendency for them to feel moral outrage at websites that fail to respect data pri-
vacy. In terms of the emerging moral framework for governing online personal
data, websites ought to respect the data privacy entitlements of consumers.13
Websites that do so may earn the trust and confidence of consumers.14
Consumers who think that they are disrespected, however, may seek to punish
websites by taking their business elsewhere, reciprocating the disrespect by pro-
viding the website with false personal information,15 or sanctioning the website
through negative gossip.16
    Commercial websites are profit-maximizing entities, and thus morality has
no intrinsic relevance for them. Nevertheless, they must engage in interactions
with consumers who do have complex moral psychological states. Woe be unto
the website that blithely carries on as if consumers merely have a preference for
data privacy in the same manner they have a preference for, say, price discounts
or free gift-wrapping.17 Thus, while websites are not themselves moral, they
may nevertheless need to address moral concerns to effectively interact with
consumers. They may even hire a morally oriented executive: a chief privacy
    It may appear naive to assume that consumers could have a pseudomoral
relationship with a distant, uncaring, and profit-maximizing website. In other
areas, however, the law is available to create relationships that simulate moral
                   Emergence of Online Privacy Entitlements                    263

relationships: this is the notion of the fiduciary. Ideally, doctors, lawyers, and
accountants would legitimately care about their clients’ well-being. At the very
least, their clients expect and pay for these professionals to act as though they
care. The reason clients may trust their fiduciaries to take their interests to
heart is that this is part of their contractual agreement. Similar relationships
may potentially be achieved via informal social norms rather than formal legal
structures. We may be moving into a world where this occurs with respect
to the relationships between websites and their visitors. Many websites now
expressly promise to respect their users’ privacy in statements loaded with
moral language. This moral language arguably creates consumer expectations
that may subsequently be interpreted as constituting special, legal relationships.
    Among the strongest privacy guarantees are those found on financial services
firm websites. Citigroup states that it is “committed to the Citigroup Privacy
Promise for Consumers.”19 Note that Citigroup designates its assertions as
a promise. Other websites typically entitle their commitments as a privacy
“statement” or “policy.”20 The risk of making such statements is having the
language used adversely against the firm should litigation ensue. Citigroup
likely calculated that the positive value of the moral language offset the potential
risk. The Citigroup Privacy Promise contains additional language that would be
useful to a plaintiff’s class-action attorney in arguing that a legally enforceable
promise was made.21
    The legal enforceability of privacy policies is currently an unsettled area of
the law.22 Some websites claim that users who use the website agree to the
terms of the website.23 This language may promote contractual interpretations
of the privacy statement. Others expressly disavow any contractual reading of
the document.24 Even if not contractually interpreted, these promises may still
have legal significance. The Federal Trade Commission has used its jurisdic-
tion to regulate unfair and deceptive trade practices by prosecuting failures to
comply with the terms of privacy policies.25 Websites’ representations may
arguably create privacy expectations such that promiscuous uses of customer
data are tortious.26 More generally, Congress has regulated particularly sen-
sitive categories of personal information, including medical and financial data
and information collected from children.27 The more that websites treat all con-
sumer personal data in a similar fashion under their privacy policies, the more
they invite Congress to formally treat all personal data on par with the most
sensitive categories.
    Why would websites expose themselves to potential liability and increased
prospective regulation? In other words, what economic forces have fostered a
situation where websites are the dominant suppliers of more respectful Internet
privacy norms? What benefits do they receive as suppliers of these norms that
have caused them to assume the costs associated with their supply? This chapter
addresses these questions and examines the role of privacy norm proselytizers
in changing the social meaning of data collection. These changes in social
264                   cyberspace privacy norms

meaning have increased consumer demand for privacy and, correspondingly,
website supply.
    The previous chapter examined the original data-collection practices that
emerged at the World Wide Web’s inception in the early 1990s. The so-
cial meaning of these practices was nonmoral. Websites benefited through
the largely unrestricted collection of personal data, while consumers, more
or less unawares, absorbed a third-party externality in the degradation of
their personal privacy.28 These practices emerged as the first norms of on-
line data collection. The persistence of these norms created a norm gap be-
tween the actual practices and the practices norm proselytizers judge to be
    This chapter will examine methods by which norm proselytizers endeavored
to moralize the social meaning of online data collection to close this norm gap.
These privacy proselytizers precipitated a norm cascade toward more respectful
privacy norms.30 Following in their wake, other norm entrepreneurs promoted
the emerging moralized data norms. This chapter will conclude by examining
the activities of two of these new entrepreneurs – the FTC and creators of new
software privacy solutions.
    The current situation is far from ideal because many websites have failed
to adopt more respectful privacy practices. Other firms have endorsed such
practices in word but not deed, either by posting deceptive privacy policies
or by regularly violating the terms of their posted policies.31 On the whole,
improvements in consumer/website interactions have been realized. Through
the efforts of norm proselytizers, a grundnorm of respect for consumer data
privacy has generally emerged in American culture. American society is only
at the beginning of the difficult task of incorporating this grundnorm into its
social and business practices.

   I. Privacy Activists Moralize the Social Meaning of Data Collection
The emergence of the grundnorm of industry respect for consumer privacy by
websites is the story of how privacy activists working in their capacity as norm
proselytizers have successfully changed the social meaning of data collection
from a predominantly nonmoral to a morally charged activity. Consumers in-
creasingly feel entitled to respectful treatment from those who handle their
precious personal data. This dramatic change in the consumer/website relation-
ship did not emerge spontaneously but was the result of the conscious efforts
of privacy activists.
   Subsection A examines the relationship between social meanings and social
norms. Subsections B and C explore methods through which privacy activists
have moralized the social meaning of data collection and the dimensions of
this new morality. Subsection D examines the impact of this change in social
meaning on the strategic relationship between consumers and websites. Finally,
                   Emergence of Online Privacy Entitlements                     265

Subsection E looks at a causal feedback loop that leads toward a pooling

                     A. Social Meanings and Social Norms
Among the key insights of recent law and norms literature is the connection
between norms and their social meanings. The best approach to changing a
social norm may be to change its social meaning. To illustrate this, Larry Lessig
discusses dueling by the aristocratic class in the Old South.32 The dueling
norm was resistant to legal prohibition, but making dueling illegal left intact its
social meaning: participation was perceived as honorable; refusal, as cowardly.
A more promising approach was to change dueling’s associated social meaning
by making it illegal for duelers to hold the honorable position of public office.33
This changed the social meaning such that potential participants were able to
decline duels without losing honor because of the credible claim that the refusal
was motivated by the esteemed prospect of holding public office.
   With other social norms, however, the affiliated social meaning may be
very difficult to change. With gun possession by juvenile members of street
gangs, the challenge is to shift the social meaning from one in which gang
members enhance their relative status by challenging authority through handgun
possession.34 The perverse logic of the illicit handgun possession norm and its
affiliated social meaning is that the greater the legal sanction against the activity,
the greater the peer status for continued participation.35
   With personal data collection, the goal of norm entrepreneurs has been to
shift the social meaning from a morally neutral to a morally loaded content. Two
differences exist between data collection norms and norms such as gun pos-
session and dueling, both of which uniquely complicate the privacy activists’
task. In the previous examples, the norm conformers are also the primary in-
tended beneficiaries of the proposed new norm. With data collection, however,
website visitors are the main group of intended beneficiaries, not the websites
   A second difference is that the goal in the preceding examples was to reduce
or eliminate behavior. With personal data collection practices, however, the goal
is more complex. The purpose is not to eliminate completely the collection and
use of personal data by websites but rather to put this practice on firmer moral
ground. Balancing websites’ benefits from disrespectful collection practices and
the desire not to eradicate data collection entirely, it seems especially difficult
for privacy norm entrepreneurs to bring about a more respectful and nuanced
   The next subsection addresses the manner by which privacy proselytizers
have approached the difficult task of changing the meaning of personal data
collection in cyberspace. As this section demonstrates, the logical first step
was to fit the relevant practices into a broader normative framework. Privacy
266                    cyberspace privacy norms

proselytizers were then in a position to evaluate potential demands placed on
websites that respect privacy. Finally, the activists proselytized to convince the
public to accept their moral position.

              B. Internet Privacy Activists’ Proselytizing Efforts
Privacy regulation in the United States has consisted of applying the concept of
privacy to new situations that resulted from emerging technologies. Brandeis
and Warren’s famous article, for example, was a response to the new privacy
threat posed by the invention of the camera and its subsequent use by the
media.36 The seminal Supreme Court cases, Olmstead v. United States37 and
Katz v. United States,38 resulted from the development and use of telephone
wiretapping technology by law enforcement officials.
   A generation ago, the pre-Internet electronic privacy advocates highlighted
the threat that government computers posed to privacy.39 The threat arose from
U.S. government plans to use computers to construct a comprehensive personal
information database on its citizens. While privacy activists continue to perceive
government as a threat to personal privacy, the focus of attention has changed
in recent years to the private domain. The single most significant impetus for
this change has been the emergence of the Internet and the associated website
   When government was the perceived threat, privacy activists invoked the
Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution with some degree of success. When
the main threat to privacy came from private entities such as websites and
Internet companies like DoubleClick, legal claims in favor of data privacy have
had little success. It has been argued that these websites violated one or more
privacy torts,41 or engaged in unfair trade practices. Attorneys have proposed
that when websites plant cookies on the hard drives of consumers they commit
trespass to chattels.42 On the whole, however, none of these legal arguments
has provided much protection against the majority of website data practices.
Privacy activists instead place great reliance on claims that website practices
are immoral.
   In recent years, a number of public-interest organizations have identified
online privacy as an important public-policy concern. These groups include
the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation
(EFF), and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT). Particular in-
dividuals, notably Marc Rotenberg and Richard Smith, have become highly
visible advocates for online privacy. Rotenberg, the Director of EPIC, is the
best known “inside-the-beltway” proponent of electronic privacy. Smith is a
so-called ethical hacker, who works to expose new forms of privacy invasion.43
As online privacy has become a highly publicized topic, shapers of public opin-
ion, such as New York Times columnist William Safire, have also recently begun
to proselytize.44
                   Emergence of Online Privacy Entitlements                    267

    The privacy activist community has employed several strategies to further
its goals: activists have functioned as industry watchdogs and legislative pro-
ponents and worked closely with the media. Through these activities, privacy
activists have pursued the related aims of education and effecting a change in
moral perspective. They have sought to educate the public, politicians, and the
media regarding factual issues relating to data collection and have striven to
change these groups’ moral perspective regarding their personal data.
    Activists have sought to inform the public of the causal connection between
privacy and website data collection activities because the potential harms re-
sulting from an inability to control personal data are not readily apparent.45 It is
sometimes noted that consumers are not significantly harmed by identity theft
because fraudulent credit card billing is insured beyond a $50 deductible.46
In fact, the real danger from identity theft is the potential for serious harm to
consumer credit records.47 The lack of education also frustrates public appre-
ciation of the connection between private medical data and potential damage
to public health. The media presented stories connecting the flow of medical
information with harms that include failure to seek medical treatment for fear
of an electronic trail that could later affect employment opportunities.48
    The bare knowledge of potential consumer harm does not inherently carry
any moral implication. No moral implication follows, for example, from dental-
hygiene advocates informing the public of the harmful results of plaque. Thus,
establishing a moral connection between website activities and consumer harms
was a core goal of the privacy norm proselytizers. Norm entrepreneurs have
advocated a moral relationship of responsibility between the data practices of
websites and consumers’ loss of privacy and have not dismissed consumer
privacy loss as a necessary casualty of the emergence of electronic commerce.
This is a moral criticism that has a distinct deontological or Kantian flavor:
websites are effectively charged with treating people as mere means to an end.
First, consider briefly a broad survey of the steps that privacy proselytizers have
taken to promote their goals.
    Ethical hackers and corporate watchdogs have been highly successful in
discovering dubious website practices. The best examples of privacy activists
targeting private companies surrounded DoubleClick’s acquisition of Abacus
Direct. Its intention was, contrary to earlier representations, to combine the
online and offline personal data from both enterprises. The advocacy community
brought the plan to the attention of the media, which gave generous attention to
the story. The price of DoubleClick’s stock dropped precipitously as the story
unfolded in the press, destroying billions of dollars of the company’s market
capitalization.49 The company has subsequently been embroiled in lawsuits and
subjected to a heightened level of scrutiny from privacy activists and the FTC.50
    Other examples of successful privacy activism occurred when ethical hack-
ers discovered that Microsoft was building a tracking utility into its software
and RealNetworks was tracking the online activities of its customers.51 The
268                     cyberspace privacy norms

media coverage of these stores typically included a quote from a privacy advo-
cate regarding the threat to personal privacy posed by the technology.52 Once
under the media spotlight, these companies quickly backed away from their
planned activities.53
    In an effort to promote laws that will create greater compatibility between
positive law and the personal data norms that they promote, privacy activists
have engaged in legislative activities. Marc Rotenberg, for example, has repeat-
edly testified before Congress in support of privacy legislation.54 Rotenberg is
credited with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provision that could serve
as a loophole if the act fosters a regime of content licensing that requires unduly
invasive monitoring.55 Privacy activists were also instrumental in lobbying for
the enactment of COPPA.56 More recently, they have pushed for an extension
of this regulatory framework to adults.57
    As with their watchdog activities, privacy activists have effectively utilized
their media contacts to draw public attention and support for their legislative
initiatives. The activists’ efforts have generally been geared toward bringing
media attention to online data issues and then converting the media to their
normative positions. Both efforts appear highly successful. In the recent past,
the New York Times has contained at least one story per week touching on issues
of electronic privacy. More conservative publications such as The Economist
and Forbes have also given sympathetic treatment to the activists’ views.58
Because electronic privacy is currently a leading policy concern, the media’s
hunger for news stories is steadily growing, making it increasingly receptive to
the story tips and press releases provided by the public interest advocacy groups.
    The success of first-generation privacy norm proselytizers is reflected by
the attention of a second generation of privacy entrepreneurs, public “opinion
leaders,” to online privacy.59 William Safire, columnist for the New York Times,
recently authored an editorial strongly endorsing the need for online privacy.60
Remarkably, no particular privacy-related news event motivated the editorial –
the topic itself has become newsworthy. Unlike many privacy activists, Safire
did not either call for a legislative solution or explicitly promote a self-regulatory
approach. Rather, he addressed the issue at a more theoretical level, arguing
that Internet privacy is an issue of growing concern to all “lovers of freedom.”
As this example suggests, a second success of the first generation of norm
proselytizers is that online privacy is perceived as so urgent and morally cogent
that it transcends ideological faction.

      C. The Moral Meaning of Internet Privacy: Reasonable Control Over
                           One’s Personal Data
Norm proselytizers, including those advocating privacy norms, promote norms
because they morally support them. The bare fact that privacy proselytizers ac-
cept similar moral principles does not mean that they agree on the application
                  Emergence of Online Privacy Entitlements                     269

of abstract moral principles to actual circumstances. Unless they take the un-
tenable position that privacy trumps all other concerns, even strong believers
in data privacy must balance this value against other values. Thus, the privacy
proselytizer who has realistic hopes of winning converts among ordinary people
must develop a position supporting increased online privacy that coheres with
ordinary morality.
   Two factors present in the early online environment should have deterred
privacy proselytizers from quick conclusions about greater online privacy: the
suspect website behavior was legal, and consumers were indifferent toward
online data privacy issues. Typically, seriously immoral behavior is illegal.
Because website data collection practices were not illegal, one implication
was that websites were behaving in a morally acceptable fashion. This is not
dispositive, however, because when new types of behavior arise, often there is
some delay before the law reacts.
   The second factor of consumer indifference is more troublesome for the
privacy proselytizer. As discussed in Chapter Twelve, consumers did not appear
concerned about website data collection practices when they first emerged. If
the consumers themselves were indifferent, could norm proselytizers intervene
without appearing as norm paternalists?61
   Paternalism is a suspect form of activity that morally coherent norm en-
trepreneurs might seek to avoid, as it conflicts with the widely accepted prin-
ciple of autonomy.62 To act paternalistically is to fail to respect individuals’
ability to make decisions that they believe will best serve their interests. The
privacy activist must sometimes recognize that many people may not care what
websites do with their personal data.63 In fact, many individuals may favor free
use of their personal data because they prefer the resulting personally tailored
marketing over privacy.64
   The paternalist seeks to assert parental authority against the inclinations
of the subjects, while the proselytizer seeks to change the moral conscious-
ness of autonomous subjects. Impressionistic evidence indicates that norm
entrepreneurs have functioned in both capacities.
   It is the mark of a savvy norm entrepreneur to spot a situation that is ripe for
the emergence of a new norm. A norm may sometimes receive widespread yet
weak social support, while the latent support for a potential replacement norm is
strong. Cass Sunstein discusses the attack on apartheid in South Africa, the use
of the term liberal as a term of opprobrium, and the current assault on affirma-
tive action, as examples of this phenomenon.65 Eric Posner provides a similar
analysis of the norms that bolstered regimes of the former Soviet republics.66
In Poland, the population was ripe for a new regime incorporating more demo-
cratic norms because the support for the old norms was more apparent than
real.67 Similarly, contemporary online privacy activists intuitively sensed that
widely held moral concepts would assist them in quickly shifting public views
from a position of indifference to moral concern.
270                     cyberspace privacy norms

    The task of the privacy norm proselytizer varies depending on the commu-
nity. In countries with generally weak commitments to privacy values, it is
more difficult to proselytize for data privacy. In the United States, however,
the privacy norm activists have an easier task because there is already a strong
commitment to privacy.
    The goal is to extend the scope of the concept of privacy to cyberspace.
This is analogous to the task of animal rights proselytizers seeking to extend
moral principles applicable to humans across species to other sentient creatures.
Electronic privacy advocates do not extend moral principles to new species but
rather to new types of situations involving the online collection of personal
data. In either case, the goal is the same: to make people see a commonality
where before they saw a distinction. The privacy proselytizer’s core normative
assertion is that individuals have a right to data privacy – though privacy activists
rarely discuss why this right should exist. Indeed, it is not the task of privacy
proselytizers to establish the right as an objective moral truth. Their task is to
convince others to adopt their position; effective proselytizing need not involve
reasoning from first principles.
    The website industry accepts the proposition that consumers have some right
to data privacy.68 This is a striking admission. One might have expected the in-
dustry to take the more aggressive position that because personal data is in the
public domain, websites are just as entitled to use it as the data subjects are.
Instead, the typical posture of industry is to acknowledge that data subjects
have some special entitlement to their personal data, despite a dearth of legal
protection. The website industry’s conflict with public-interest privacy advo-
cates is over the proper conception of privacy, how much privacy is appropriate,
and which thick behavioral practices should invoke the grundnorm of privacy
respect. In other words, the disagreement is not over the grundnorm, per se,
but which second-order norms and which thick behavioral norms should be
established to promote privacy. The website industry has predictably proffered
a fairly minimalist framework of practices to promote the grundnorm.
    There is no monolithic view as to what the right to data privacy encom-
passes.69 On one extreme, the less personal data that is collected and used, the
better.70 This position may have trouble winning widespread support, however,
because this appears to go against consumer preferences.71 Many consumers
seem willing to trade away personal data as long as they receive valuable con-
sideration in return.72 Most privacy proselytizers do not seek to minimize data
collection and use but rather to change the nature of the relationship between
websites and consumers from a morally problematic to a morally acceptable
    Norm proselytizers espouse a number of concrete norms to support the
second-order norms of data privacy respect: notice, consent, access, security,
and enforcement. Least controversial is the notion that data privacy rights in-
clude a right to receive notification of the uses to which websites will put
                  Emergence of Online Privacy Entitlements                    271

personal data. At least in its public discourse, the website industry widely ac-
cepts the requirement of notice.73 Some notion of consent or agreement is
the second most often mentioned component of data privacy rights. There is,
however, deep division regarding the definition and implication of consent in
the context of website data gathering.74
    The concept of consent is ambiguous in distinguishing between opt-in and
opt-out regimes. In an opt-out regime, personal data will automatically be col-
lected unless a consumer specifically indicates otherwise. Industry groups such
as the Online Privacy Alliance have also promoted an opt-out policy.75 The
alliance is a coalition of more than eighty companies and trade associations and
was formed in early 1998 to encourage self-regulation of data privacy.76 In an
opt-in regime, the default is that personal data will not be collected unless
the consumer explicitly agrees. Privacy advocates are typically advocates of
    Privacy is often defined as the right to be left alone.78 Website respect for
consumer privacy cannot mean that websites should literally leave consumers
alone because consumers are the ones who visit websites. Instead, the core
meaning of privacy in the context of website personal data practices is that the
website should leave the visitor’s data alone, except to the extent the visitor
consents to her personal data being collected and used. When a consumer al-
lows her data to be collected and used, she will have less informational privacy
as a result. Note that even though this collection and use would reduce privacy,
it would not be an instance of the website disrespecting the visitor because the
collection and use occurred with the visitor’s consent. The central moral imper-
ative is not to minimize collection and use of personal data but rather to gather
and use a visitor’s personal data in a manner that does not violate her ability
to control the flow of her personal data. When a website surreptitiously collects
personal data from a consumer, this bypasses her rational capacities and treats
her as incapable of choosing to supply her data.
    In addition to notice and consent, norm proselytizers have promoted a right of
access to personal data residing on the databases of websites or related entities
like DoubleClick.79 Generally, the claim is for access and the additional ability
to contest or correct incorrect data.80 The industry has generally opposed these
measures, claiming that they would be unduly expensive to implement.81 Some
websites, however, have begun to make explicit offers of consumer access to
    A fourth element of the general right to data privacy is security for personal
data residing in databases of commercial firms.83 If personal data is easily
accessible by hackers, the website may be causally implicated in injuring the
consumer whose data is stored by the website, even if the website is not guilty
of any active wrongdoing.
    Finally, the effectiveness of the foregoing privacy protections is depen-
dent upon implementation of an enforcement principle, which requires that
272                    cyberspace privacy norms

governmental and/or self-regulatory mechanisms impose sanctions for non-
compliance with fair information practices.84 These five aspects of the general
right to data privacy are accurately grouped under the notion that people have
a right of reasonable control over their personal data.85 Note that a right to
reasonable control does not entail a consumer right to ownership of individual
personal data.86 If consumers own their personal data, they presumably can sell
it. Once alienated, the consumer has no more claim to it than a piece of real
property. The right to access personal data and secure data storage discussed
previously may be rights that are preferably inalienable.87
    There is a logic of ordinary morality that applies by extension to the nor-
mative language of data privacy. For example, there are important differences
between preferences and entitlements. Websites that mistreat personal data are
not merely subverting consumer preferences but are violating consumers’ per-
ceived rights. This is morally offensive. Many consumers prefer that Amazon
charge less for shipping and handling, but they do not feel morally outraged
when Amazon fails to oblige because they are not entitled to this treatment.
Consumers increasingly feel entitled to the specific respectful treatment of their
data.88 One Internet entrepreneur summarized Internet firms’ growing recogni-
tion of consumer feelings: “Companies used to think of customer data as theirs.
They’re starting to realize they’re really custodians, and the customer controls
the information.”89
    Consumers currently have little legal recourse, but they may nevertheless
possess a moral response that is, from the website’s perspective, functionally
equivalent. Morally speaking, consumers will disdain disrespectful websites.
They will view such websites as less reputable, trustworthy, and worthy of
continued business relationships. More aggressive consumers may feel that
disrespectful websites deserve to be sanctioned or otherwise reciprocally ill-
    We are now in a better position to understand the distinct and interrelated
functions of privacy proselytizers. First, proselytizers sought to educate the
public about the causal connection between website data collection activities
and individual privacy. Advocates then sought to highlight the fact that websites
were morally harming the public through their activities. Activists further taught
that consumers have a moral entitlement to a reasonable degree of control over
their personal data. The following subsection will discuss a consequence of this
moral connection: consumers utilize their strategic leverage over websites to
further their moral rights and entitlements to privacy.

 D. Data Privacy Rights Create a Strategic Interaction of Respect and Trust
An important strategic implication follows from the activities of privacy activists
in creating a sense of consumer entitlement to personal data. As previously dis-
cussed, consumers did not view their relationship with websites as strategic until
                    Emergence of Online Privacy Entitlements                    273

they perceived it as a moral relationship. But once consumers perceive web-
sites as either respecting or disrespecting them, they will respectively trust or
distrust websites. The more strongly consumers feel a data privacy entitlement,
the more they will be morally affronted by instances where websites disrespect
their privacy. Accordingly, they will be slower to trust websites and more in-
clined to punish those that fail to show respect. Retaliation may take the form of
negative gossip or providing false or misleading information to the website.91
    The notion of website visitors choosing to trust is similar to Richard
McAdams’s idea that actors can choose whether to esteem another party with
whom they are interacting.92 Note, however, that whereas McAdams plausibly
contends that the desire for esteem is a brute preference that a rational actor
might prefer for its own sake, I am not asserting that trust is something that
websites would independently desire. Rather, a website would prefer to gain
the trust of its visitors because this trust will be positively correlated with these
visitors choosing to interact with the website in the future. In other words, web-
sites hope to signal to consumers that they are desirable partners with whom
to cooperate.93 The situation becomes strategic because the website is then in
a position to choose whether to respect the consumer and engender consumer
trust.94 Part of the website’s choice to show respect, or not, will depend in part
on its calculation of how much its choice will cause the consumer to trust the
website, and how much the resultant cooperative opportunities are worth to the
website.95 The strategic structure of the situation is represented in Figures 13.1
and 13.2.
    Each party has two choices, each affecting the utility of the other party.
Thus, each party needs to think about how its choice and the choice of the other
party will affect its payoff. This means that each party considers whether it
can affect the other’s choice. Specifically, the website will consider whether it
should attempt to foster consumer trust, and the consumer will consider whether
she can influence the website’s choice to provide a privacy policy.96 Once the
consumer appreciates that the website’s actions will affect her outcomes, she
will either withhold or bestow trust to incentivize the website to show respect.

                                     Large Website

                                      Privacy Policy    No Privacy Policy

                         Trust              3, 3               1, 4

                       No Trust             3, 1               1, 2

             Figure 13.1 Large Website/Consumer Strategic Interaction
274                     cyberspace privacy norms

                                     Small Website

                                       Privacy Policy   No Privacy Policy

                         Trust              2, 2               1, 4

                       No Trust             2, 1               1, 3

             Figure 13.2 Small Website/Consumer Strategic Interaction

    Because of these mutually affecting choices, a greater number of websites
may find it in their interest to respect privacy in order to maintain the trust
of the increasingly educated, and demanding, consumer.97 Indeed, the number
of websites that show respect for privacy has continued to grow as public
consciousness of the issue of online privacy has grown.98 Note that as recently
as a few years ago, only a minority of websites – the larger and better-known
websites – offered privacy policies.99 This makes sense because these websites
are most likely to have overlapping, multifaceted interactions with consumers,
thus making it crucial for these websites to have respectful and trustworthy
    That websites place a premium on consumer confidence is readily indicated
by the extent to which they attempt to acquire it deceptively. Many firms have
deceptive privacy policies. In other words, the firm wraps itself in a cloak of
respect by means of the privacy policy, and yet the actual terms of the policy
are lawyered such that the firm does whatever it pleases with personal data.100
For example, Toysmart.com explicitly promised not to sell data: “[p]ersonal
information voluntarily submitted by visitors . . . is never shared with a third
party.”101 In bankruptcy, Toysmart then attempted to sell this data.102 Despite
the sense of consumer entitlement, many small websites may still prefer to
avoid the expense of providing privacy policies. As illustrated in Figure 13.2
many small websites may still prefer the outcome of mutual noncooperation
(southeast cell) to that of mutual cooperation (northwest cell).
    As a result of privacy proselytizers, a situation has emerged in which there are
two types of norms. Previously, there were simply permissive norms whereby
websites did whatever they wanted with personal data without regard for con-
sumers. Now new, more respectful, norms are emerging. For simplicity’s sake,
the previous discussion focused solely on the provision of privacy policies. But
as already mentioned, there are many actions websites may undertake in order
to demonstrate their respect. Although this represents significant moral progress
from a privacy activist perspective, a major problem remains. New, more
respectful norms are now in play, but so, too, are the old nonrespectful norms.
                  Emergence of Online Privacy Entitlements                    275

   The following discussion will demonstrate that while the privacy activists
may not themselves have the resources to push for universal conformity to
respectful norms, these norms have taken on a life of their own. The result is
that other norm entrepreneurs find it is their interest to get involved in promoting
these norms. Both the FTC and various private companies have come to have an
interest in further promoting those more respectful data norms first proselytized
by the privacy activists. Before examining these norm entrepreneurial activities,
however, consider briefly one additional force that may cause websites at the
margin to switch to more respectful norms as a consequence of the initial efforts
of the privacy activists.

       E. Causal Feedback Loop Leading Toward Pooling Equilibrium
There is an apparent causal feedback loop operating: as more respectful prac-
tices emerged, consumers have become informed about online privacy and,
consequentially, increasingly demanding of their privacy.103 In a criminal law
context, Dan Kahan observes a parallel phenomenon whereby a rise in crime
makes social sanctions less powerful, which leads to more crime.104 In the sit-
uation described by Kahan, the causal feedback loop leads to normative break-
down. Richard McAdams describes a similar dynamic involving social norms
pertaining to wearing fur and smoking cigarettes.105 McAdams observes that
as more people shun the behavior, the remaining participants in the activities
will experience an increasingly negative impact. This puts greater pressure on
these remaining participants to abandon the activity. Depending on the utility
functions of the remaining participants, the greater pressure may induce some
to abandon the activity. Through continued iterations of this causal loop, all
participants may, over time, defect from the activity. Alternatively, some stal-
warts may have strong preferences that continuously outweigh all pressures to
defect. After a time, a new equilibrium may result such that there are stable
populations of conformers and nonconformers.
   A parallel dynamic in website privacy practices seems to be under way. As
the number of websites providing privacy policies increases, the more intense
will be the perception that the remaining websites are disrespectful of con-
sumer interests. Increasingly, websites without a policy will be outliers in their
disregard for consumer privacy interests. This will likely cause an increasing
number to alter their behavior, possibly leading to a tipping point where most
websites begin to take privacy more seriously.106
   Whether such a feedback loop is in operation is an important question. The
previously described process is self-regulating in the sense that the impetus
toward the new norms comes from informal social forces rather than formal
legal methods. One criticism occasionally made of self-regulation is that while
it may work to motivate many, or even most, players to act in a cooperative
fashion, there will still be some players – the bad actors – who fail to conform.
276                    cyberspace privacy norms

Due to the causal feedback mechanism, there may be the potential for the bad
actors to become cooperators. For example, this may already be occurring
among the participants in the Network Advertising Initiative, an industry group
formed to agree on acceptable forms of privacy protection. A commentator
suggested that the 10 percent of advertisers who did not initially comply with
the industry guidelines might be led by “centrifugal force” to go along, or risk
losing both respect and business.107

      II. Strengthening the Privacy Entitlement for Nonmoral Reasons

           A. The FTC’s Threat Model of Privacy Entrepreneurship
The FTC has recently acted to reinforce the privacy promoting efforts of the
privacy activists. Privacy activists are motivated because they care deeply about
privacy. What could motivate a federal government agency to promote more
respectful online personal-data practices? Elsewhere, I have argued that public
choice theory provides a plausible answer: the FTC has sought to become the
leading federal agency regulating online activities as a means of extending
its regulatory grasp to the fertile new domain of the Internet.108 The FTC’s
role in helping to moralize the social meaning of data collection can also be
understood in public choice terms as an effort to extend the agency’s purview
over the burgeoning website industry.
    As an indirect result of privacy advocacy, Congress asked the FTC to ex-
amine online privacy issues.109 Voters are increasingly contacting their con-
gressional representatives and voicing concerns about online privacy.110 These
concerns have translated into increased agitation on Capitol Hill regarding on-
line privacy. This agitation has resulted in proposed legislation and calls for
FTC involvement. The FTC acts pursuant to its authority under the Federal
Trade Commission Act, which mandates that the agency address “unfair” and
“deceptive” trade practices.111 In particular, the agency has borrowed the var-
ious specific privacy protection measures supported by the privacy activists
and shrouded them in the rhetoric of fairness.112 The FTC refers to stan-
dard proposed privacy measures as the fair information practice principles
    The FTC contends that these fair practices are best promoted through web-
site privacy policies. In other words, websites should address the elements of
notice, consent, access, security, and enforcement in the representations that
they make to consumers in their privacy policies. A privacy policy that accu-
rately and completely states the website’s personal data practices would be in
accordance with the principle of notice/awareness because once the consumer
has notice of the website’s practices, she can consent to the data exchange or
exit the website. In addition, stipulations concerning access/participation to the
user’s personal data on file with the website can be set out in the privacy
                  Emergence of Online Privacy Entitlements                    277

policy, as can stipulations concerning integrity/security and enforcement/
   Note that whereas the privacy activists promoted respect for privacy as
the core moral concern, the FTC has shifted the moral focus from respect
for privacy to a concern for fair practices. When websites take up the FTC’s
suggestion and seek to implement the FIPPs via privacy policies, the FTC’s
regulatory grasp is enhanced. Once websites make representations to con-
sumers regarding their practices, the FTC has a claim to jurisdiction if the
websites behave differently. From the FTC’s perspective, the website has en-
gaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, which is directly within the FTC’s
   As a norm entrepreneur, the FTC faced a problem not confronted by the pri-
vacy activists: an unreceptive audience. As discussed earlier, privacy activists’
audience is consumers. Consumers were naturally disposed to accepting the ex-
tension of the general right to privacy to the domain of data privacy in cyberspace
and were thus generally receptive to such ideas. By contrast, the audience for
the entrepreneurial efforts of the FTC were websites. Different websites had
differing interests when it came to the provision of privacy protection for the on-
line consumer. Generally, larger and more established websites had an incentive
to provide privacy protections while smaller websites did not.115 Importantly,
the FTC’s preference for websites to incorporate the FIPPs into online privacy
policies provided no additional incentive to the smaller websites to provide
such protections. The FTC addressed this impediment by creatively utilizing
the unique resources available to it as a federal agency: it issued a threat to the
website industry.116
   In 1998, the FTC threatened to recommend to Congress that it enact privacy
legislation if more respectful industry customs were not forthcoming through
industry self-regulation. The threat was highly credible and particularly salient
due to the commission’s recent success in shaping legislation to protect chil-
dren’s online privacy.117 This threat was a shock to the normative equilibrium
of the website industry, causing many firms to alter their behavior. Generally,
the impact of the FTC’s threat could be expected to correlate with website size
and structure. The larger and more multifaceted a website’s activities, the more
likely it would be to react to the FTC’s threat by providing more respectful
privacy practices.
   Some large websites felt so threatened that they personally attempted to
incentivize smaller websites into compliance with more respectful norms.
Under this threat, the major websites are no longer indifferent to the ac-
tions of the smaller websites. The failure of these smaller websites to adopt
privacy-respecting practices might lead to privacy legislation, which would
adversely affect all websites. The large websites in particular would have
the most to lose from onerous legislative requirements. Faced with this sit-
uation, large websites devised methods to bring small websites into conformity
278                     cyberspace privacy norms

                                      Large Websites

                                       Privacy Policy     No Privacy Policy

                    Privacy Policy          4, 4                   3, 2
                      No Privacy
                                            2, 3                   1, 1

                     Figure 13.3 Intraindustry Strategic Threats

with more respectful data collection practices. Large websites threatened
to withhold advertising from websites that did not demonstrate adequate
respect for privacy.118 As represented in Figure 13.3, this action changed
the strategic structure of the relationship between large websites and small
    The threats issued by some key large websites likely contributed toward the
desired outcome, as an increasing number of small websites are now offering
privacy policies. As indicated by the 1999 FTC Report to Congress, the number
of websites providing privacy policies has increased significantly. Regarding
the issuance of threats by large websites, the FTC stated that “[c]ompanies
like IBM, Microsoft and Disney, which have recently announced, among other
things, that they will forego advertising on websites that do not adhere to fair
information practices are to be commended for their efforts, which we hope
will be emulated by their colleagues.”119
    Note that when large websites threaten to withhold advertising from small
websites, the effectiveness of the threat does not depend on repeated interaction
between the parties. Even if the small websites only interact once with Microsoft
or IBM, they will typically prefer that this interaction permit advertising. In the
terminology of informal game theory, the instrumental allocation of advertising
is functioning like a “selective incentive” that rewards cooperative behavior on
an individual basis.120 Selective incentives allow the party seeking to incentivize
conformity to provide incentives to individuals in order to elicit their conformity.
This is in contrast to the collective good itself, which by definition is a public
good: when provided for one, it is provided for all, and thus is open to free
    This type of selective incentive cannot be expected to work for all small
websites. Some small websites will have little prospect of receiving advertising
revenue from large websites and benefit extensively from the unfettered use of
personal data. These websites may continue to have a dominating preference
to free ride on the growing practice of providing privacy policies. Thus, the
net result of the FTC threats was still a bi-normative world in which many
                    Emergence of Online Privacy Entitlements                         279

large websites and some small websites were respectful of privacy, while other
small websites were not. More recently, however, a growing number of the
recalcitrant websites do appear to be conforming to more respectful privacy
norms.121 The final section will explore another important process that appears
to be contributing toward this development.

                 B. Software Makers Promote Privacy for Profit
A new type of privacy norm entrepreneur has recently emerged. These are
software vendors marketing so-called privacy solutions.122 Privacy solutions are
software that users or websites can install to create a more privacy-respecting
online environment. The following discussion provides an examination of the
advertisements placed by some of these software vendors for their products
in tech-oriented magazines. Looking at the text of these advertisements serves
two purposes: it provides strong evidence of privacy proselytizers’ success in
moralizing data privacy and suggests new methods by which these moralized
norms may be further entrenched.
    The ultimate audience for this growing type of advertisements is often web-
sites, as they are the direct purchasers of these products. Due to the viral nature
of norms, it is also integral that these advertisements impact consumers. The
more the advertisements are successful in fostering moral concern among con-
sumers, the greater the social pressure toward increased privacy protection that
will be exerted on the website industry. As the price of not providing privacy in-
creases, the number of websites that will have the balance favoring of respectful
over nonrespectful norms will increase.
    Particularly striking is the overt normative language used in the advertise-
ments that dramatically inform consumers that they are being disrespected by
many websites. For example, consider the representative advertisement by the
firm, ZeroKnowledge.123 It depicts an average Internet user, unremarkable ex-
cept for the bar code emblazoned on her neck. The text consists of a small
number of rhetorical statements made by a representative online consumer to
the website industry: “I am not a pair of eyeballs to be captured or a consumer
profile to be sold. . . . I am not a piece of your inventory. . . . I will not be bartered,
traded or sold.”124 These phrases play on current website industry jargon, in
which customer visits are referred to as “capturing eyeballs,” and personal data
is amassed into “consumer profiles.”
    The theme of these statements is aptly viewed in everyday Kantian terms.
The consumer is demanding more respectful treatment. As portrayed, these
firms equate her with her data in contravention of the Kantian maxim that
actors should not treat persons merely as a means to their own ends.125 The
import of the advertisement is that typical websites currently treat people not
as individuals, but instead as “inventory” that can be bar-coded and bartered,
or as “eyeballs” that can be “captured.”
280                    cyberspace privacy norms

    The advertisement then contrasts these industry attitudes with the norma-
tively acceptable position as portrayed by a representative consumer speaking
rhetorically to the website industry: “I am an individual and you will respect
my privacy.”126 This brief statement contains three normatively loaded words:
“individuals,” “respect” and “privacy.”127 The final claim is that “On the Net, I
am in control.”128 This statement is, of course, aspirational, as the whole force
of the advertisement is that the woman is not presently in control of her personal
data. By demanding her moral rights when it comes to online privacy, she in
effect admonishes the reader of the advertisement to do the same.
    The advertisement by the company Netcreations, a provider of a permis-
sion-based e-mail marketing system, similarly invokes an everyday Kantian
theme.129 Netcreations promotes itself as providing consumers with only the
information they have asked for. As contained in this chapter’s epigram, the
advertisement features a picture frame with the following tenets set out as its
“Code”: “This is not Cattle. This is a human being. We do not spam human be-
ings. We respect human beings. Respecting human beings is good business. This
is the code.”130 The advertisement strives to convince the website industry that
privacy-respecting practices are also good for business. As the advertisement
says, “[w]hat is right is also effective.”131
    A similar effort is made by a firm named PrivaSeek.132 In a series of ad-
vertisements, PrivaSeek promotes technology that will give consumers control
over their online profiles.133 The advertisement notes that, “[c]onsumers are
becoming more savvy about protecting their personal information online.”134
PrivaSeek’s product is geared toward this changing privacy environment be-
cause it promises to increase the “confidence” of customers.135 Confidence is a
term that is often used in the business-to-business software market that supports
secure online transactions. PrivaSeek plays on websites’ desire for consumers
to have confidence in them so that consumers will readily interact with websites
on a repeated basis.
    In conclusion, each software privacy solutions provider will likely influence
privacy norms by further stoking consumer privacy concerns and the corre-
sponding entitlement to personal data. In other words, the advertisements will
further advance the shift in the social meaning of personal data collection toward
a more normatively charged interpretation.136 Although there is no hard data,
these advertisements will likely have an effect as well in further galvanizing
public opinion in the direction of greater demand for more respectful website
privacy practices. For websites at the margin, it may now make sense to switch
to more respectful norms. Thus, while companies selling privacy solutions may
lack the lobbying savvy of organizations like EPIC or the coercive power pos-
sessed by the FTC, they may nevertheless be powerful shapers of public norms
regarding online privacy due to their ability to reach millions directly through
their print media campaigns.
                   Emergence of Online Privacy Entitlements                    281

There have been important changes in informal online privacy regulation over
the past few years – primarily the recognition of a moral entitlement to privacy
in cyberspace. This chapter has argued that privacy norm proselytizers are the
leading contributors to this development. These activists have taken an interest
in online privacy because they believe Internet users are morally entitled to,
and desperately in need of, increased protection. Other norm entrepreneurs
have subsequently supported an entitlement to privacy for reasons less moral,
but no less efficacious in stimulating demand for increased privacy protections.
    As a result of these efforts, Internet users are increasingly conscious of moral
entitlements to respectful treatment by websites. The general social demand for
privacy respect in cyberspace is half of a broader supply and demand model
documenting the emergence of Internet privacy norms. While this chapter has
begun to address the response on the part of websites to the growing demand
for privacy, a more detailed analysis of the supply side is necessary in order to
address a puzzle that has been created by the foregoing account.
    Privacy activists have not been impressed with the response by websites
to the increasing demand. They allege that websites have only made reluctant
and ineffectual efforts to respect users’ privacy interests. The puzzle is why
the substantial increase in demand for online privacy has not resulted in a
corresponding increase in the supply of online privacy, as a market model
would naturally suggest. This puzzle is explored in the next and last chapter.
                 Website Privacy Respect:
                    Real and Feigned

                     This is not cattle.
                     This is a human being.
                     We do not spam human beings.
                     Respecting human beings is good business.
                     This is the code.1

As the previous two chapters indicated, the threat to personal privacy due to the
ever-expanding flow of personal data online is the most significant pubic policy
concern that has yet to be spawned by the Internet. In the past few years, however,
websites are increasingly claiming to address this concern adequately.2 Privacy
advocates have generally been unimpressed with these efforts by websites.
Some commentators have claimed that the website industry’s new data norms
are pathetic and insincere attempts to address burgeoning privacy concerns.
Jessica Litman states that industry self-regulation has been an “abject failure.”3
Whether the new website norms really do increase the supply of privacy is a con-
tentious matter that will be addressed later. What is not contentious is that the
website industry has responded to demands for greater online privacy with a new
set of industry norms regarding the collection and use of consumer data. This
chapter will seek to better understand what has motivated websites to adopt these
new norms. This chapter completes the supply-and-demand model of the emer-
gence of website privacy norms that was initiated in the last chapter. Chapter
Thirteen considered the demand side of the equation,4 looking at the role that has
been played by norm proselytizers and other norm entrepreneurs in stimulating
consumers to demand online privacy with respect to their personal data.5
   This chapter will examine the response to this increased demand, which has
been an apparent increase in the supply of privacy-related norms by websites.6
In the view of their critics, the vast majority of websites have to date displayed
no genuine regard for the privacy interests of users. If the critics are right, this
                            Website Privacy Respect                            283

raises an interesting question; why has an increase in demand not created an
increase in supply?
    One possible answer is that most websites have thought it to be in their in-
terest to simulate privacy respect rather than provide the real thing. Section II
will consider two competing accounts as to why many websites might think
it sensible to simulate respect for their users’ privacy. The two accounts are
derived as applications of two competing theories of norms. On one theory,
norms are patterns of rationally motivated conforming behavior.7 On the other
theory, norms are sets of individual signaling acts, each of which is meant to
communicate that the signaler has a low discount rate and so is a good
type with whom to enter into cooperative relationships.8 As later discussion
will demonstrate, each of these conceptions of a norm provides a distinct
explanation of the dubious quality of many extant website privacy norms. I
will argue that the pattern conception provides the more satisfying account. I
will note as well that other potential emergence accounts do not even get off the
ground; the online data collection world is not a close-knit community and so
Ellickson’s efficiency account is inapplicable, and websites are businesses, not
people, and so McAdams’s account based on the human desire for esteem is
    Section II will conclude with a consideration of the normative implications of
the preceding analysis for privacy proponents of